insurance dispute

neilmcl

sheaoc said:

My partner was making a right turn on an A road and a on coming car had crashed in the rear left axle causing the the car to turn 120 degrees and the rear left wheel to come off the car.
She had almost completed her turn.
There was nothing restricting his view to stop but that would be debatable. For an axle to fail would require a high impact hit which makes me to believe he was speeding. I also took photos of his tyres they show lack of thread and can see the wire within the tyre i also ran an mot check and his car had no road tax.  

My partner has been badly injured and insurance is saying she is liable for she made right turn. I refuse to accept liability for he had hit the  rear left hand side of the vehicle. 

The damage done to my car is a write off due to the damage caused. 
Any legal advice would be greatly welcomed.

A couple of assumptions there. If the their view was not restricted then why is it debatable, maybe it wasn't as restricted as you would believe. Also, it doesn't take a lot for one car to spin another by hitting it on the rear wheel, and it wouldn't take a great deal of speed for an impact to cause the sort of damage you've explained. That, and lack of MOT etc has no bearing anyway as your OH is 100% liable.

Can you post the location of this accident so we can see the sort of road you're talking about?

Hasbeen

sheaoc said:

My partner was making a right turn on an A road and a on coming car had crashed in the rear left axle causing the the car to turn 120 degrees and the rear left wheel to come off the car.
She had almost completed her turn.
There was nothing restricting his view to stop but that would be debatable. For an axle to fail would require a high impact hit which makes me to believe he was speeding. I also took photos of his tyres they show lack of thread and can see the wire within the tyre i also ran an mot check and his car had no road tax.  

My partner has been badly injured and insurance is saying she is liable for she made right turn. I refuse to accept liability for he had hit the  rear left hand side of the vehicle. 

The damage done to my car is a write off due to the damage caused. 
Any legal advice would be greatly welcomed.

From what you are saying your partner turned right, in front of an oncoming car which hit her rear left hand side. She was broadside on?


You state there was nothing restricting his view to stop, therefore there was nothing restricting you partners view of oncoming car, but she turned right anyway?


A larger heavier car could quite easily knock a wheel of a car in a collision that way. And turn it 120 degrees.


Where you a passenger? as you say you took pictures.


I assume the police were involved as an ambulance etc, would have been required for your badly injured partner.


They will no doubt deal with any worn tyre / tax / speeding issues, so not your concern.


Without any other evidence, Dashcam footage, Independent witnesses etc? Then it looks like your insurance company is correct. Sorry.

If you can please post location, so others etc can get a better street view image of road layout to give you perhaps more help with this situation.


Without any further evidence, the next person posting on a new thread may say something like: 
............…......…
 New Poster 

"I was driving within the speed limit, 60mph on an A road. I saw ahead facing me on the other side of the road  a car sitting indicating to turn right.

I slowed down slightly thinking I would give them time to turn. But no the other car sat stationary. I was just about to pass when the other car suddenly turned right across in front of me.

I emergency braked but unfortunately had no time to stop and hit the other car rear LH rear wheel area with the front of my car. Spinning it around.

My insurance says quite rightly in my opinion the other driver was at fault, but they are disputing this and claim I was at fault for not stopping when I saw them."

lopsyfa

facade said:

lopsyfa said:

So I don't understand the argument of nothing restricting his view to stop.

All drivers have a duty to avoid an accident . If you can see that you are going to hit someone, you are supposed to stop, or steer round them not just smash into then shouting "My right of way!!!!!"

So there is an argument that the failure of the other driver to stop/slow down when he could clearly see her turning contributed to the accident.

I don't disagree with you but in the absence of evidence to proof that the other driver can prevent the accident, it is going to be her 100% fault unfortunately. Otherwise, that just leaves room for people to turn and wait for oncoming cars to prevent the accident. The bigger issue lies with the person turning right not leaving enough gap to safely complete the turn without the other driver taking evasive action. Like I said in my statement the best outcome will be shared liability - there is no way the OP's partner is getting away with 0% liability even if the other driver could/should have done something.

MinuteNoodles

sheaoc said:

My partner was making a right turn on an A road and a on coming car had crashed in the rear left axle causing the the car to turn 120 degrees and the rear left wheel to come off the car.
She had almost completed her turn.
There was nothing restricting his view to stop but that would be debatable.

My partner has been badly injured and insurance is saying she is liable for she made right turn. I refuse to accept liability for he had hit the  rear left hand side of the vehicle. 

The damage done to my car is a write off due to the damage caused. 

She's 100% at fault. If there was nothing restricting his view to stop there was also nothing restricting your partner's view to see an oncoming vehicle. Whether or not the vehicle should have been on the road is neither here nor there. Whether or not it was insured, MOT'd, taxed or roadworthy is neither here nor there. A vehicle turning right across the path of another vehicle resulting in an accident is a slam dunk 100% driver who was turning is at fault. The only thing that may be affected is the amount paid out to the third party because of the condition of their vehicle but it won't stop a payout even if they had no insurance and it won't alter the fact your partner is 100% liable.

chrisw

I don't think the OP will be back as I don't think these are the answers they want to hear. 

Hasbeen

chrisw said:

I don't think the OP will be back as I don't think these are the answers they want to hear. 

Not back on his duplicate thread either in Public Transport.

Do find it a little odd that OPs partner was seriously injured and he was there taking pictures of other car?

But no mention of police or ambulance? Perhaps a whiplash injury?

Probably will never know actual events or outcome now.

fred246

This sort of accident illustrates why it is often correct that an accident increases your insurance premium even though it isn't deemed to be your fault. Lots of accidents can by avoided by better driving from the 'innocent' party. If he's got no vehicle tax and bald tyres he's probably speeding too. Serial criminal.

452

fred246 said:

This sort of accident illustrates why it is often correct that an accident increases your insurance premium even though it isn't deemed to be your fault. Lots of accidents can by avoided by better driving from the 'innocent' party. If he's got no vehicle tax and bald tyres he's probably speeding too. Serial criminal.

How do you conclude he's speeding?

AdrianC

452 said:

fred246 said:

This sort of accident illustrates why it is often correct that an accident increases your insurance premium even though it isn't deemed to be your fault. Lots of accidents can by avoided by better driving from the 'innocent' party. If he's got no vehicle tax and bald tyres he's probably speeding too. Serial criminal.

How do you conclude he's speeding?

Because somebody who didn't even see the collision happen said he must've been...

[Deleted User]

fred246 said:

This sort of accident illustrates why it is often correct that an accident increases your insurance premium even though it isn't deemed to be your fault. Lots of accidents can by avoided by better driving from the 'innocent' party. If he's got no vehicle tax and bald tyres he's probably speeding too. Serial criminal.

I had three claims at one time on my insurance which increased my premiums and for which I wasn't at fault:

1. Wife driving car, my policy, I wasn't there.  Written off by third party who accepted liability.

2. Guy crashed into the back of us while we were stationary at a roundabout.  Third party accepted liability.

3. Old guy trying to park ripped off my front bumper and damaged the wing.  Did a runner. We came back to the car to find the mess. Luckily, a witness had seen the accident and took the car details down.  Police traced, liability admitted.

It's really annoying to get penalised for other drivers being idiots, especially when you're not even there!