Car accident not my fault but my insurers want to admit liability

tanvir

A week before xmas i was involved in a car accident where i went into the back of 3rd party at about 15-20mph, I fully believe this was not my fault.
I was travelling on the dual carriageway at 50mph, There is a private road from where you turn left at a giveway to join the dual carriageway. The 3rd party just joined without stopping at the giveway which resulted in me braking and going into the back of him as there wasn't enough stopping distance nor was he travelling at a high enough speed to keep a decent gap.

At the scene he admitted liability and was ready to settle this outside of insurance and said will be in touch in the new year to arrange payment.
Fast forward the new year and my insurers tell me his insurers hold me liable and his submitted an injury claim :mad:.

The issue is my insurance are saying they don't wish drag this on as i hit him from the back so 99% he is going to win and I would have to admit liability. They are not interested that he made a dangerous entry onto the dual carriageway etc and just want to settle this which i find very strange for an insurance company.

There is no CCTV footage as the council confirmed it wasn't recording at the time and no witnesses available.

Is there anything I can do to pressure my insurance to at least fight this properly? At the very least its my word against his since he has no CCTV or witness either, but my insurers want to admit liabilty and settle this?

What can I do?

Mistral001

What did the police report say?

PS. You might get more replies on the motoring sub-forum.

tanvir

Mistral001 wrote: »

What did the police report say?

PS. You might get more replies on the motoring sub-forum.

There was no police report as we both agreed it was minor collision and he admitted liability at the scene so there was no need for police.

Thanks for pointing this out, i'll create a thread on motoring forum.

Aretnap

If you drive into the back of someone there is a strong presumption that you were to blame, so without more evidence than you saying "but I really didn't have time to stop" it is unlikely that your insurer would win this one. So I fully understand why they would want to cut their losses and pay out now rather than run up legal costs fighting a case which they will very probably lose anyway.

Ultimately there is very little you can do - when you take out an insurance policy you agree to let the insurer settle claims as they see fit - it is after all their money, not yours, that they are handing over.

FutureGirl

We only have your version of events.

I am going to bet that the other driver is either saying that;

a) they did not enter the carriage way where you say they did, and that they were already in front of you, correctly proceeding straight on when you hit them

or

b) they joined the carriage way where you say they did, BUT the accident happened further down the road than where you are saying it happened

Either of the above would put more 'blame' onto yourself.

You insurer wouldn't just say you're at fault based on your version of events, which makes me believe there is something else that we're not aware of.

Malkytheheed

tanvir wrote: »

i went into the back of 3rd party
going into the back of him
there wasn't enough stopping distance
keep a decent gap.

Sorry. You don't have a leg to stand on.
A deer once jumped into the side of my car at speed. Literally nothing I could do. Alas as far insurance cares it was "my fault" as no other cars were there to apportion blame onto. Life isnt fair when it comes to insurance.

eddddy

Malkytheheed wrote: »

Sorry. You don't have a leg to stand on.
A deer once jumped into the side of my car at speed. Literally nothing I could do. Alas as far insurance cares it was "my fault" as no other cars were there to apportion blame onto. Life isnt fair when it comes to insurance.

That's completely different.

An insurer's definition of a "fault claim" is one where they cannot recover funds from the other party.

In your case, the deer was at fault, but your insurers were unable to recover funds from the deer - so they recorded it as a "fault claim".

In the OPs case, the OP says the other driver was at fault, and so the OP wants their insurer to recover funds from the other driver.

(i.e. You can take a driver to court to claim damages, but you can't take a deer to court to claim damages.)


The fundamental point here is that somebody was probably negligent which resulted in a crash.

• If the OP was negligent, the OP (or their insurers) should pay all costs.

• If the other party was negligent, the other party (or their insurers) should pay all costs.

The argument is over which person was negligent.

Malkytheheed

eddddy wrote: »

The argument is over which person was negligent.

And the argument doesn't even begin if you go into the back of someone. You are at fault. end of.

tanvir

Thanks for all your responses.. Looks like I have no way to dispute this. It's just so annoying because they admitted liability at the scene and wanted to settle after xmas only to go and make a claim and say they're injured.
Guess the insurance game is really unfair for honest drivers

Malkytheheed

tanvir wrote: »

Thanks for all your responses.. Looks like I have no way to dispute this. It's just so annoying because they admitted liability at the scene and wanted to settle after xmas only to go and make a claim and say they're injured.
Guess the insurance game is really unfair for honest drivers

It is unfair. It's pretty rotten. I would have called the police no matter how small the accident.

tanvir

Malkytheheed wrote: »

It is unfair. It's pretty rotten. I would have called the police no matter how small the accident.

Definitely a lesson learnt