disputed claim

ChrisA31

We had a minor accident involving a cyclist. Luckily we were in a queue of traffic so travelling at less than 10mph. We clipped the back wheel and the cyclist didn't actually fall off the bike, but the back wheel was slightly damaged. We accepted that it was our fault and that the bike wheel would need repairing and it was all dealt with amicably.
We have just been informed by our broker that our insurers have paid the cyclist several thousand pounds. Apparently they claimed for loss of earnings and injury but we know that they didn't take any time off work and that they weren't injured (they told us so when we rang a few days later with additional info for their claim). How have they got away with this? Most bizarrely, the insurers claim to have settled quite a large sum for damage to our car. There was no damage at all and we didn't claim for any. Who have they paid? We tried to speak with the insurers today but they weren't in the slightest bit bothered!
The size of the claim has made our insurance premiums jump which is why I'm so angry about it. Any advice?

forgotmyname

Don't hit cyclists or bicycles?

Quentin

You say your victim lost no work due to your actions?

Yet successfully claimed compensation for injury.

The two cannot be true, as the victim would need time off to attend appointments/ medical assessments/treatment etc

And loss of earnings always has to be proven before getting paid (as do all other losses claimed)

Crazy_Jamie

Quentin wrote: »

The two cannot be true, as the victim would need time off to attend appointments/ medical assessments/treatment etc

Not necessarily. It is quite unusual for a loss of earnings claim to be included solely to cover absences from work for medical appointments/assessments and treatment. Loss of earnings claim usually relate to time spent off work immediately after the accident, at least in more minor cases where there hasn't been any need for surgery or similar.

Quentin

Whatever the loss of earnings was for, the OP can be assured that it wouldn't have been paid for without being substantiated!

Crazy_Jamie

Quentin wrote: »

Whatever the loss of earnings was for, the OP can be assured that it wouldn't have been paid for without being substantiated!

That is certainly true.