Subsequent damage after an accident

Liz777

In January a lady went into the back of my car (25mph). At the time of the accident I was distressed and having a panic attack, people started to beep their horns as both cars were blocking a roundabout.


In my distressed state I started to move my car off the road and took it up onto the kerb. Little did I know how crumpled the back of the car was and as I went up the kerb it was pushed forward onto the front suspension.


The back of the car has been repaired, the lady admitted liability. But I'm now stuck with damage I caused whilst upset. I've put in a fault claim through my insurance, they've told me that cannot claim through the 3rd party insurers. The damage will cost around £1600 to repair.


It seems unfair as I wouldn't have caused this damage if the lady hadn't have hit me. My insurance company have said I only have a case if I can prove the damage was caused at this incident.


Has anyone else had anything similar or can give advice?! Or is this just a case of sods law!?


Thanks!

Aylesbury_Duck

If the two sets of damage were caused by two separate incidents (albeit from a shared root cause), then they are two separate claims. I can't see how you can pin the self-inflicted damage onto the other driver, no matter how distressed you were. I think you've just got to accept it will be a fault claim for the new damage.

It does pose an interesting question for your insurance record. Will it count as two accidents or just the one? Some NCD protections only allow a certain number of claims in a given period, so it's worth asking your insurer the question about how it would be treated.

AdrianC

Why is it unfair?

The other driver didn't cause this additional damage. You caused it.

You caused it by driving whilst not in a fit state to drive. What put you into that state is not relevant. If you weren't in a state to drive, you shouldn't have tried to drive. Whether other drivers were hooting or not is their problem.

a.turner

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

If the two sets of damage were caused by two separate incidents (albeit from a shared root cause), then they are two separate claims. I can't see how you can pin the self-inflicted damage onto the other driver, no matter how distressed you were. I think you've just got to accept it will be a fault claim for the new damage.

It does pose an interesting question for your insurance record. Will it count as two accidents or just the one? Some NCD protections only allow a certain number of claims in a given period, so it's worth asking your insurer the question about how it would be treated.

If Liz claims for the additional damage it would only be one claim if the third party paid for the initial accident.

[Deleted User]

If there was any liability it would be with the people beeping their horns and piling on the pressure, but it's likely impossible to trace them and it would be a hard argument to make. It would be an "if not for" argument, like when you swerve to avoid an accident but end up hitting something as a result, the person who made you swerve is at fault even if they didn't hit you.

missile

a.turner wrote: »

If Liz claims for the additional damage it would only be one claim if the third party paid for the initial accident.

I don't think you are correct.
It would be 1 not at fault claim plus 1 at fault claim.

alfie1950

As I see it this second damage is 100% down to the OP for driving whilst not in a fit state and was caused by her deliberately ramming the car up the kerb. As such I would think her insurer will consider her to be a higher risk and greatly increase her premiums considering she will now have to state that she has made two claims .

Scrapit

DELETED USER wrote:

If there was any liability it would be with the people beeping their horns and piling on the pressure, but it's likely impossible to trace them and it would be a hard argument to make. It would be an "if not for" argument, like when you swerve to avoid an accident but end up hitting something as a result, the person who made you swerve is at fault even if they didn't hit you.

No .

[Deleted User]

Scrapit wrote: »

No .

Yes .

System

Liz777 wrote: »

It seems unfair as I wouldn't have caused this damage if the lady hadn't have hit me. My insurance company have said I only have a case if I can prove the damage was caused at this incident.

I have a slightly alternative view to those on here.

How fast did you go up the kerb? You have to hit the kerb at a decent speed to damage the suspension on the front so if you were moving to the kerb from a standstill on the roundabout I would imagine you weren't going any faster than a fast walking/running pace, certainly not fast enough to do any significant damage.

Arklight

Liz777 wrote: »

In January a lady went into the back of my car (25mph). At the time of the accident I was distressed and having a panic attack, people started to beep their horns as both cars were blocking a roundabout.


In my distressed state I started to move my car off the road and took it up onto the kerb. Little did I know how crumpled the back of the car was and as I went up the kerb it was pushed forward onto the front suspension.


The back of the car has been repaired, the lady admitted liability. But I'm now stuck with damage I caused whilst upset. I've put in a fault claim through my insurance, they've told me that cannot claim through the 3rd party insurers. The damage will cost around £1600 to repair.


It seems unfair as I wouldn't have caused this damage if the lady hadn't have hit me. My insurance company have said I only have a case if I can prove the damage was caused at this incident.


Has anyone else had anything similar or can give advice?! Or is this just a case of sods law!?


Thanks!

Can you explain this again because I don't understand it at all. Obviously some people are interpreting it to mean that you drove into the kerb so fast you damaged a previously undamaged part of your car.