I disagree with car insurance decision

puddy28cat

I was driving straight on through green lights. The car waiting in the opposite direction decided to turn right in front of me. I slammed on the brakes, swerving to my right to try and avoid him. Unfortunately I hit his passenger side at the rear.
My insurance is now saying as it was his rear that I hit it means he was almost through his manoeuvre and therefore I should have stopped.
I am so angry at this as he was turning right onto oncoming traffic. Should I have swerved towards the car and hit him side on or near the front I assume I would be ok. Is there anything I can do to appeal this?

Strider590

End of the day, without any evidence it is your word against the other driver that you didn't run a red light. There are a lot of drivers who in that position start to move off on amber.

flashg67

nothing to top you disagreeing, and restating why you hit the TP where you did, (which sounds reasonable to me), suggest writing would be better than a call

arcon5

lol I don't understand their logic. He crossed the path of an oncoming vehicle so surely would be him to prove the contrary?
To say you should have stripped is ridiculous! Wonder if they say that for all accidents!!

I think you'd have a good case to complain to the ombudsmen

rudekid48

arcon5 wrote: »

lol I don't understand their logic. He crossed the path of an oncoming vehicle so surely would be him to prove the contrary?
To say you should have stripped is ridiculous! Wonder if they say that for all accidents!!

I think you'd have a good case to complain to the ombudsmen

Yes of course, because the insurer really wants to pay out when they don't need to.....

Strider590

arcon5 wrote: »

lol I don't understand their logic. He crossed the path of an oncoming vehicle so surely would be him to prove the contrary?
To say you should have stripped is ridiculous! Wonder if they say that for all accidents!!

I think you'd have a good case to complain to the ombudsmen

But (playing devils advocate) if the 3rd party couldn't see because of another vehicle was blocking their view (turning right from opposite direction), the lights went amber and 3rd party went off assuming it was clear, but OP did a late amber gamble and hit the 3rd party?

A LOT of people run amber lights and end up crossing on red, so you can see why the insurance company might blame OP.
Hell maybe this is what happened and the 3rd party has it on dashcam? we just don't know......

It would be worth checking that junction for CCTV cameras, a lot of lights around by me have them mounted 100 yards or so back from each set of lights, I don't know who runs them (I know it's not the Police), but the council would know.

debtdebt

OP, if you disagree with your insurer's decision, why don't you hire your own solicitors to present your own claim or defend the third party claim at your own cost of course!

Manxman_in_exile

Had an almost identical collision three years ago. Only difference was that I didn't have time to take any avoiding action and third party's front nearside hit my front offside.


Third party's insurers paid out in full for our write off and we had no disputation with their valuation (it was well within the range we had previously decided would be acceptable).


BUT - in my case I'm pretty certain the third party didn't deny liability (at least the police who attended told me that he accepted it was his fault) and I didn't come into contact with the rear of his car. Do insurers automatically assume that if you hit the "rear" half of a car, then you must be at fault?


Just to add concerning traffic lights: I actually asked one of the police officers "I didn't go through a red light did I?" and he definitely assured me that I had not and that the lights were on green. I didn't know how he could have known this as there were no cameras, but I suppose they may have come to this conclusion as apparently the third party had said that because the lights were on green for him he thought it was ok to turn right. (No filter so if lights were green for him they must have been for me too).

almillar

the lights went amber and 3rd party went off assuming it was clear,

That's still 3rd party's fault. You don't just go when you see an amber light. That wouldn't allow for a light fault, for example.

Sounds like someone in the insurance company has spouted out the automatic 'rear of the car hit = other car's fault' line without fully understanding the circumstances. Fight it!

AdrianC

If you disagree with the insurer's decision, there's a well-documented route to appeal it.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-insurance-fault-claims.html

If you could have foreseeably avoided it - including by greater caution approaching the junction - then you'll be held partially liable.

From a standing start, he moved off, turned and got nearly clear of your path before you hit him. What was the speed limit?

puddy28cat

Thanks for all your support. I was going 30mph and it was raining lightly. I understand saying I should have approached the junction with more caution but my lights were green and I'm driving in a straight line going the speed limit. There was no reason to suppose extra caution was needed. The insurance company is saying as I hit his rear end it means we was nearly through his manoeuvre and therefore the onus was on me to stop.
I hope he does have a dash cam and it will show he went before his light turned green. The cameras on the lights are just pedestrian sensors unfortunately.
I feel stronger for these replies in keep fighting my side.