3rd parties insurer admitted liability then changed mind

Mercdriver

tir21 wrote: »

26th

it went to the acm without my knowledge. it took me a while to work out that kindertons were not part or my insurance company

ps the accident was clear cut in that debris fell off back of lorry - but i have no way of proving it

If you didn't instruct Kindertons, who did? Was it your insurance company? They are a big expensive firm who generally use their own cars for loan cars. I know as my wife's car was was banged into a pillar by one of the drivers at the valet parking at T3, and the parking company's insurer appointed Kindertons.

debtdebt wrote: »

Rubbish. If a third party admits liability, they will admit liability regardless as to whether the OP is representing himself, has got legal expenses insurer involved, an AMC or his own insurers. Who the OP is represented by doesn't change the accident circumstances.

You don't think that an insurance company never weighs up whether to admit liability based on the financial consequences? You might be very naiive. I've been dealing with one for 8 years on a non motoring level, and they definitely do weigh this question up.

debtdebt

You're talking rubbish. Liability and quantum are dealt with independently of each other.

Take for example a rear end shunt. You're telling me the insurers of the vehicle which hit the car in front will deny liability if a claim for hire is presented by a credit hire organisation in order to try and avoid a large hire invoice??? What do you think will happen? The credit hire organisation will merely issue proceedings which will increase costs further. What will the insurers put in their defence on liability? "We will not admit liability because it will open us up to a large financial bill" Do you think the Court will accept that?

You've been dealing with a non motoring claim for 8 years? I hope you've issued Court proceedings in that time as limitation passed at least 2 years ago and you're now estopped from issuing.

Mercdriver

debtdebt wrote: »

You're talking rubbish. Liability and quantum are dealt with independently of each other.

Take for example a rear end shunt. You're telling me the insurers of the vehicle which hit the car in front will deny liability if a claim for hire is presented by a credit hire organisation in order to try and avoid a large hire invoice??? What do you think will happen? The credit hire organisation will merely issue proceedings which will increase costs further. What will the insurers put in their defence on liability? "We will not admit liability because it will open us up to a large financial bill" Do you think the Court will accept that?

You've been dealing with a non motoring claim for 8 years? I hope you've issued Court proceedings in that time as limitation passed at least 2 years ago and you're now estopped from issuing.

Now it's you showing ignorance. It's just been settled with a court date held for January 2018. It doesn't have to be settled within 6 years but instigated within 6 years.

debtdebt

What do you think "issued Court proceedings" means?

tir21

Mercdriver wrote: »

If you didn't instruct Kindertons, who did? Was it your insurance company? They are a big expensive firm who generally use their own cars for loan cars. I know as my wife's car was was banged into a pillar by one of the drivers at the valet parking at T3, and the parking company's insurer appointed Kindertons.

it must have been my insurer but it seems very opaque when they don't inform you they are doing this