Non fault claim - no legal Insurance

Quentin

AdrianC wrote: »

Just go through your insurer, assuming you're fully comp. If the other driver has admitted liability, go straight to his insurer. There is no need for anything to go legal at all.

If you have no uninsured losses recovery (aka motor legal cover) then irrespective of whether or not you have comprehensive cover your insurer won't help over any uninsured losses eg. Injury compensation/ taxi fares/loss of earnings

mrbg07546

Many thanks all.

My renewal is coming up. If we have this with unison, do we need the motor legal cover going forward??

Joe_Horner

mrbg07546 wrote: »

Many thanks all.

My renewal is coming up. If we have this with unison, do we need the motor legal cover going forward??

No. Both offer broadly the same service, so you may as well use the one you're effectively getting for free

mrbg07546

Thanks all. Again.

I wasn’t gonna claim because I’m just glad my children are ok.

But I’ve read a few threads here so I will go through the process.

My car did a lot of good work and gave us lots of protection(a merc) A young corsa driver hit me:(

glentoran99

AdrianC wrote: »

Is it that clearcut? If they start claiming you changed lanes and braked sharply...
.

I tried that excuse when I went in the back off someone, my Insurer was having none of it,


Other party tried that excuse when they went into the back of my wife, Insurer paid up no quibble, Its generally considered non fault if you get hit from behind, Ive never come across a case where it went any other way

AndyMc.....

glentoran99 wrote: »

I tried that excuse when I went in the back off someone, my Insurer was having none of it,


Other party tried that excuse when they went into the back of my wife, Insurer paid up no quibble, Its generally considered non fault if you get hit from behind, Ive never come across a case where it went any other way

Karma strikes then.

Someone carved you up and you paid. Your wife carved someone up and they paid.

Aretnap

glentoran99 wrote: »

Other party tried that excuse when they went into the back of my wife, Insurer paid up no quibble, Its generally considered non fault if you get hit from behind, Ive never come across a case where it went any other way

They do happen, though they are not common. One of the more recent examples is Ali v D'Brass, where a driver who braked "without warning and for no good reason" was found to be 40% liable for the resulting collision - the driver who hit him still got 80% of the blame. Reading between the lines there was some road rage, tailgating and brake-testing going on (it involved a BMW and a white van), but those actual words don't appear in the court reports.

In practice there's a presumption that the driver behind is responsible unless there's good evidence to the contrary, and I can't imagine an insurer would think it was worth even trying to rebut that presumption unless it was a particularly big claim or the evidence was particularly good (or preferably both).

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Aretnap wrote: »

In practice there's a presumption that the driver behind is responsible unless there's good evidence to the contrary, and I can't imagine an insurer would think it was worth even trying to rebut that presumption unless it was a particularly big claim or the evidence was particularly good (or preferably both).

OTOH, it would not be a good idea to rack up large charges if your accident did happen to fall into the small number of scenarios where there could be blame apportioned, or even, being cynical, where the other party was able to suggest that a different scenario than the victim believed happened did occur.

So for example, if the scenario had any hint of lane changing by the hit car then the defence of "the following car should have kept its distance" fails.

The danger is to assert that a rear end accident will always be settled in favour of the front car without knowing the circumstances might create the false impression that it is safe to run up significant costs depending on that outcome.

The other scenario might be the uninsured driver - I'm not familiar with how this would end up, but I think again you might be at risk.

All I am saying is - be certain that any optional costs you incur will be reimbursed before you start incurring them.

glentoran99

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Karma strikes then.

Someone carved you up and you paid. Your wife carved someone up and they paid.

Or I wasn't paying attention and didn't stop in time, and the the wife had the audacity to stop at a red light

Car_54

Aretnap wrote: »

They do happen, though they are not common. One of the more recent examples is Ali v D'Brass, where a driver who braked "without warning and for no good reason" was found to be 40% liable for the resulting collision - the driver who hit him still got 80% of the blame.

It's time they insisted on judges being numerate ....;)