Motorcycle RTA - Pedestrian at fault, how do i recover costs?

kooli9

Confused765 wrote: »

Believe every word AngryCrow tells you.

As a 15 year old cyclist I was seriously injured in a collision with a car which was totally my fault...
Or was it?

Towards the end of my lengthy rehabilitation I received a letter from his insurers demanding I pay his £550 excess.

Upon taking legal advice it was pointed out that I was actually only 60% to blame, and successfully sued the driver for £10k

Thats mad. Why were you only 60% to blame?

Aretnap

Jlo31 wrote: »

I think the clause is if the household person is using a motorised vehicle... Not if they are cycling or walking.

I may be wrong though.

You've got that entirely the wrong way round. A household insurance policy will NOT provide liability cover for the use of a motor vehicle - for that you need car insurance. Car and home insurance policies are designed not to overlap with each other.



Contents insurance will, however, provide cover for liability resulting from other types of accidents - including accidents you have as a pedestrian or cyclist.

FatherAbraham

kooli9 wrote: »

I did. But found out only covers loss of limb and that sort

I mean a proper, standalone personal-accident policy. Not those useless motor-policy add-ons.

Mine pays a daily benefit for hospitalisation, and would pay half a million pounds the case of permanent total disablement.

lisyloo

angrycrow wrote: »

Recovery prospects against the pedestrian are virtually nil and an attempt to claim is likely to result in a counter claim..

I’d like to understand why is this the case?
Don’t most people have houses (assets) and jobs. Yes it may be effort and costs if they are obstructive, but why are recovery prospects nil?
I can understand it may be hard to find out dif soneone has assets/income, but a little detective work e.g land registry for £3 might show if they are a freeholder.

lisyloo

kooli9 wrote: »

hello

I had a motorcycle accident last week were a pedestrian ran out across several lanes of traffic and collided with me.

I have video and 3 witnesses that say i was not at fault. This is currently being investigated by Met Police.

My insurance are very happy for me to claim on my own policy but have said as it was a pedestrian, who are generally uninsured they have no way to recover the costs and therefore the claim would go down as at fault. This was further reiterated by the police office travelling in the ambulance with me when he said "it may have been better off if a car hit you"

As is stands my bike is due to be assessed and most likely written off to which i will get a low estimate pay out minus £650 excess. This is not be even close to replacing.

If i buy the bike back and fix, I'm still left with a written off bike.

I could cancel the claim but then have to pay for all repairs (it mainly the plastics)

The other aspect is I have very bad neck, back & shoulder pain (couldn't move after accident, paramedics thought i'd damaged my c-spine) which will need physio. Again more costs.

How do i go about recovering my costs from the third party? Is there any organisations that can help? (MIB only deal with vehicles)

What should i do regarding the bike? claim or not?

Did you get legal cover with your insurance? Or separately?
Have you considered the nhs for treatment?

My FIL had a car accident with a pedestrian (I believe he was driving at 30 in a 60 and the man was running with greyhounds).
The insurer took the view that angry cow said about recovery prospects and inciting a counter claim, but his legal insurance did agree to cover his excess.
He did get a counter claim but FILs insurance said “sue us” and running man never did. So it seems unfair but the pedestrian seems to have an advantage in that they can make a fee free claim but motorist has a hard time claiming against a pedestrian.

I have legal insurance and if I could I would do some private investigating, such a land registry, but I may be wrong as I’m not clear on why recovery prospects are nil when people are liable, have assets and quite possibly insurance e.g. contents insurance.

kooli9

lisyloo wrote: »

Did you get legal cover with your insurance? Or separately?
Have you considered the nhs for treatment?

My FIL had a car accident with a pedestrian (I believe he was driving at 30 in a 60 and the man was running with greyhounds).
The insurer took the view that angry cow said about recovery prospects and inciting a counter claim, but his legal insurance did agree to cover his excess.
He did get a counter claim but FILs insurance said “sue us” and running man never did. So it seems unfair but the pedestrian seems to have an advantage in that they can make a fee free claim but motorist has a hard time claiming against a pedestrian.

I have legal insurance and if I could I would do some private investigating, such a land registry, but I may be wrong as I’m not clear on why recovery prospects are nil when people are liable, have assets and quite possibly insurance e.g. contents insurance.

I think insurance companies just don't want 5he hassle as not a sure thing for them. But that does screw over people who aren't at fault.

I have legal cover but the need 3rd party details to investigate which the police are being difficult about releasing.

At best it's 50/50 whether they can recover anything. And that's being optimistic

lisyloo

I sympathise but I still don’t understand why it’s 50/50.
If someone is liable there are legal ways to make them pay ( I appreciate there are costs but that is why we get £100k legal cover isn’t it).
Sure if someone is homeless, jobless or itinerant the. You can’t get blood out of a stone, but if they own a home there’s a very high chance they have contents insurance.
I don’t claim to understand or have the answers but if it was me I’d be pushing my legal insurer or this as I don’t believe in general it’s 50/50 I.e. 50% of the population have no assets or insurance to pay their liabilities.

The reason I got legal insurance rather than use no win no fee is that I have a contract with rights and a free ombudsman. I appreciate they have a disclaimer about prospects but you also have an entitlement to what you paid for, so I’d want an explanation and not just a weak “it’s too hard”.

I didn’t get anywhere with my FIls case (they were running scared provoking a counter claim) and considered it hard to pursue.

comeandgo

A driver should always be looking at what's around them and be aware. Nobody just runs out or just appears, they came from somewhere, you were just not observant enough, that's why a driver will never get 100%.

jackieblack

angrycrow wrote: »

Sorry to bring further bad news but if the pedestrian crossed several lanes of traffic before you collided with the pedestrian liability is not clear cut. If the pedestrian claims for injury you could easily see liability settle 75/25 in their favour unless they were intoxicated. The greater duty of care rests with the motorist to watch for vulnerable pedestrians doing stupid things like running across the road.

Recovery prospects against the pedestrian are virtually nil and an attempt to claim is likely to result in a counter claim.

Best to claim on your policy and accept the excess is gone and no prospects to pursue the injury claim.

This ^^^^^^^

My husband had a similar accident caused by a pedestrian who was (to quote the police officer who attended the scene) "clearly off his face", this was borne out by toxicology tests done at the hospital.
My husband's insurer defended the pedestrian's claim against his insurance but we were left out of pocket by a significant amount. We were advised that, in theory, we could attempt to recover this via Small Claims, but not worth the hassle due to the pedestrian being a druggie and rough sleeper

FatherAbraham

lisyloo wrote: »

I sympathise but I still don’t understand why it’s 50/50.
If someone is liable there are legal ways to make them pay ( I appreciate there are costs but that is why we get £100k legal cover isn’t it).
Sure if someone is homeless, jobless or itinerant the. You can’t get blood out of a stone, but if they own a home there’s a very high chance they have contents insurance.
I don’t claim to understand or have the answers but if it was me I’d be pushing my legal insurer or this as I don’t believe in general it’s 50/50 I.e. 50% of the population have no assets or insurance to pay their liabilities.

The reason I got legal insurance rather than use no win no fee is that I have a contract with rights and a free ombudsman. I appreciate they have a disclaimer about prospects but you also have an entitlement to what you paid for, so I’d want an explanation and not just a weak “it’s too hard”.

I didn’t get anywhere with my FIls case (they were running scared provoking a counter claim) and considered it hard to pursue.

You've mentioned contents insurance in this context in two different posts now.

This is baffling.

Why do you think that having contents insurance will help?