Crashed into a car that had alreay crashed....

Joe_Horner

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

If I understand the OP correctly, is the issue not that the insurance company is saying that they will have to pay for the damage caused to the rear of the OP!!!8217;s car but also the front of the OP!!!8217;s car, which was caused by the earlier accident? If so, the second part seems very unfair, but perfectly valid in the first part.

The value of the payout really makes no difference to the Op though - if his insurer decides it's easier / cheaper to pay for the full damage then that's their prerogative.

Since there was no time to assess the damage from the original accident where would you even start breaking it down without a full blown aircraft-style accident investigation?

The difference on his insurance record between a (say) £3k damage payout or £10k write-off payout will be negligible to nil.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

The point is it is your fault because you should drive at the speed that you can see to stop. Many people don't but Roadcraft/Advanced Driving give a technique that allows you to do so, and it doesn't make that much difference. As you were driving too fast for the road conditions the second collision is entirely your fault as is the consequential damage.

Think of it differently. Imagine 5 different reasons why a vehicle might have stopped in the same place - e.g. breakdown, a queue of traffic after an accident further down the road... and you would have still hit them.

AndyMc.....

You hit a stationary object and there!!!8217;s really not much more to say.

Svein_Forkbeard

Congratulations to the OP who has accepted and taken on board the advice given on here gracefully. We don't get many of them.

AdrianC

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

If I understand the OP correctly, is the issue not that the insurance company is saying that they will have to pay for the damage caused to the rear of the OP's car but also the front of the OP's car, which was caused by the earlier accident? If so, the second part seems very unfair, but perfectly valid in the first part.

That's chinese whispers.

The OP is liable for the damage they caused to the vehicle as it was immediately before they hit it.

So if the other driver's insurer repairs the front end, the OP's insurer is liable for damage to the back end.
If the other driver's insurer writes the car off for the front end damage, the OP's insurer is liable for any reduction in salvage value because of the damage to the back end.

Either way, it's minimal difference for the OP - they have an at-fault claim against them, and that's the expensive bit.

Drive at a speed you can stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear.

agrinnall

This safety advert is being shown a lot on TV and in cinemas at the moment, while it refers to corners on country roads it seems to be appropriate to the OP's situation too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5gwkzsggHI

Deastons

There's a country road near me that has a long, sharp left-hand bend and then immediately a set of traffic lights - no signs or warning.

Every time I'm sitting there on a red light I just stare into my rearview mirror waiting for someone to plough into the back of me. People definitely drive too fast for the conditions of the road.

For the OP to have hit the car hard enough to spin it 180 degrees, they must have been going far too fast for the bend. It's lucky no-one was badly hurt.

AndyMc.....

Deastons wrote: »

There's a country road near me that has a long, sharp left-hand bend and then immediately a set of traffic lights - no signs or warning.

Every time I'm sitting there on a red light I just stare into my rearview mirror waiting for someone to plough into the back of me. People definitely drive too fast for the conditions of the road.

For the OP to have hit the car hard enough to spin it 180 degrees, they must have been going far too fast for the bend. It's lucky no-one was badly hurt.

Or be significantly greater in mass.

AdrianC

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Or be significantly greater in mass.

Or both...

Deastons

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Or be significantly greater in mass.

All the more reason to slow down.