Letter from a solicitor re an RTA in July 2017

midimaomao

n217970 wrote: »

Prehaps 2 sides of the same hill?

Thank you. Yes exactly.

midimaomao

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oi4gaieytd06tce/Photo%2003-01-2018%2C%2008%2039%2052.png?dl=0

Sorry All, I was trying to draw a pic to show how it happened - hope the link works. He was driving uphill so he could not see what was in front of him. When he hit me he was driving downhill as well hence it was too late for him to stop.

ampersand

Op, you need to hit the 'quote' button to respond to a particular post.

Your posts #10, #11, #12 lack anchorage and guesswork will not help you receive sound advice.

wgl2014's #9 is correct.

Be sure that Hertz do not 'settle' anything without your full input. They tend to cave when private parking scumpanies bully hirers with speculative invoices, posing as "fines".

AdrianC

The only thing that's important here is the bit you quote as paragraph 3.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

As per AdrianC.

This is entirely normal. I would think that the motorcyclist has been hit on by a dodgy claim solicitor who is trying for a speculative injury claim.

There are a couple of reasons for doing it - if the motorcyclist had third party, getting Hertz to concede a knock for knock will get the motorcycle repaired, and there is always the off-chance that Hertz insurers may pay out something rather than go through the hassle of arguing. It is in no way a reflection that you may have been dishonest, it is treating insurance as a faceless cash supplier.

As they suggest, pass it on to Hertz, make no reply yourself.

NBLondon

I'll bite....

So OP had just crested the hill and the motorcycle following came over the hill at a higher speed and ran into the back of OP...

OP hasn't mentioned slowing down or doing an emergency stop so that suggests the biker had failed to notice they were following a car on the uphill bit? Or the biker turned out of a side-turning and accelerated madly over the brow of a hill? Both of which suggest the biker was reckless.

A moving motorcycle hits an already moving car with enough speed differential to write off the car suggests that either a) the OP was driving quite slowly or b) the bike was at high speed. The OP did say the biker was seriously injured - so I wonder if ambulance chasing has come into play.

So - in addition to advice above 1) send copy to Hertz with covering letter that states you do NOT accept any liability 2) If you have legal insurance as part of your own car insurance (or with home insurance) read the small print of that to see if it will provide a solicitor should one be needed at a later stage. Did you get a copy of the police report?

debtdebt

IanMSpencer wrote: »

As per AdrianC.

This is entirely normal. I would think that the motorcyclist has been hit on by a dodgy claim solicitor who is trying for a speculative injury claim.

There are a couple of reasons for doing it - if the motorcyclist had third party, getting Hertz to concede a knock for knock will get the motorcycle repaired, and there is always the off-chance that Hertz insurers may pay out something rather than go through the hassle of arguing. It is in no way a reflection that you may have been dishonest, it is treating insurance as a faceless cash supplier.

As they suggest, pass it on to Hertz, make no reply yourself.

The concept of "knock for knock" hasn't existed for over a decade if not two. In any event, a lot of people like yourself quote it without knowing what it really means. Historically if insurers agreed knock for knock between themselves, it related to their own outlays only and it meant that they would insure their own costs for repairing their respective policyholder's vehicles. It had nothing to do with liability or uninsured losses.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

debtdebt wrote: »

The concept of "knock for knock" hasn't existed for over a decade if not two. In any event, a lot of people like yourself quote it without knowing what it really means. Historically if insurers agreed knock for knock between themselves, it related to their own outlays only and it meant that they would insure their own costs for repairing their respective policyholder's vehicles. It had nothing to do with liability or uninsured losses.

It's my age - I meant split liability.

debtdebt

IanMSpencer wrote: »

It's my age - I meant split liability.

You're right. Even if the solicitors for the motorcyclist can prove that the OP is even 10 or 20% at fault it would be worth pursuing a claim. The motorcyclist gets at least something for his injuries which could be quite a lot of they are serious and the solicitors get all their costs paid.

BeenThroughItAll

NBLondon wrote: »

I'll bite....

So OP had just crested the hill and the motorcycle following came over the hill at a higher speed and ran into the back of OP...

OP hasn't mentioned slowing down or doing an emergency stop so that suggests the biker had failed to notice they were following a car on the uphill bit? Or the biker turned out of a side-turning and accelerated madly over the brow of a hill? Both of which suggest the biker was reckless.

A moving motorcycle hits an already moving car with enough speed differential to write off the car suggests that either a) the OP was driving quite slowly or b) the bike was at high speed. The OP did say the biker was seriously injured - so I wonder if ambulance chasing has come into play.

So - in addition to advice above 1) send copy to Hertz with covering letter that states you do NOT accept any liability 2) If you have legal insurance as part of your own car insurance (or with home insurance) read the small print of that to see if it will provide a solicitor should one be needed at a later stage. Did you get a copy of the police report?

Hang on... just because the OP hasn't bothered to tell us the exact details, including whether they were slowing or stopped, shouldn't automatically lead one to the conclusion that the biker was at fault or reckless. An alternative conclusion might be simply that OP isn't giving the full story, as has been obvious by the drip-feed of information throughout the thread.


From the tone of your post, would it be fair to assume that you just have a problem with motorcyclists because we're all 'reckless', mad, bearded nutcases who rampage around at high speed taking risks, fighting and murdering prostitutes?