Admiral & Auxillis. Non-fault claim RTC advice needed.

AdrianC

Glassart26 said:

At the point of impact, the damage to the car started from the rear bumper and wheel arch, then along the door where it is shallow at the start and gets deeper at the end. There is no damage to the front of the car. The Haulage Vehicle was ... turning right ... and as he turned in, he hit my husband. 

The Haulage Driver is claiming that he was stationary and that my husband drove into him. 

My argument is that: If my husband was in motion, The point of impact would be at the front of the car, and there would be a lot more damage to the front driver side, then moving to the rear passenger side and, possibly even causing the bumper to come off. 

Not necessarily.
If your husband had moved across towards the truck, the damage could easily have started part-way along the door then gone back.

The insurers have seen the photos of the damage. We haven't.
They think it's plausible that either version could be true.
There's no other evidence. Just two people pointing at each other and saying "He did it".

Glassart26

Thanks for your opinion. I do appreciate you haven't seen the photos - I tried to describe them as best I could.

The scenario if my husband were to change lanes or drift into the truck is a plausible event, however, my car is a small Vauxhall Corsa hollow can and the 3rd party is a large rock solid flatbed truck, so if we were in motion, surely we would have had way more damage than what we did? This is why I think the other scenario is unlikely. Also, in terms of drifting, the route that my husband took for 3 of the 5 days prior to the accident day was almost the same - coming from Pentonville Road, Angel, heading down the A501 Euston Road towards Hammersmith, (I have checked his route tracker on Google Maps everyday). On this route, there is a choice of four lanes, beside the bus lane. He mostly chose the lane closest to the bus lane, but now he can't remember on this particular day so he may have been in the next adjacent lane. The other two lanes are for turning right into York Road or Kings Cross which he would never be in.

Anyway, I now have to send my response to Esure. Having initially had good service from Esure, I am disappointed that they have not acted fully in our best interest which we paid them for. They didn't contact us straight away when they first knew the 3rd party disputed liability. Nor did they advise us that in the time from the accident until the 3rd party disputed it that they or we could get CCTV in the event that the third party changed their opinion.
We also received a text message from them saying  'We are pleased to tell you that your £300 policy excess has been waived.' And we had a phone call from them saying that they other party has accepted liability - however Esure are denying they said this in the call. 
Thanks again for your thoughts. 

AdrianC

Glassart26 said:

I am disappointed that they have not acted fully in our best interest which we paid them for.

They did everything reasonable.
They do not act in YOUR interest, they act in theirs.
Your contract gives them the right to decide for themselves on the most suitable outcome of a claim.

They didn't contact us straight away when they first knew the 3rd party disputed liability.

The collision happened on the 21st August.
30 days from 21st August is the 20th September.
The other insurer disputed on the 21st September. How? By post?
You received a letter on the 28th September. It is not unreasonable for them to contact you via post.

Glassart26

In subsequent calls to them...9th October ...I asked for a full breakdown of what they did and when which is when they told me the dates of when they were notified. They told me that Esure informed the 3rd Party insurance on 8th September about the costs of repair to my car (the 3rd party had scratches and no dents so no claim for damage to their vehicle). On 21st September the 3rd Party insurers informed Esure that they disputed liability. 

My insurance contacted me by post  - I received the letter on the 28th September which stated to call them to further my claim and other stuff about insurance fraud and that's it - for which I called them straight away only to be told that the 3rd party disputed liability. Why did they not call on the 21st when they were told? It's not like they haven't called me directly before and given its a time sensitive situation...they've totally lost my chance of getting any CCTV. 

Having emailed and spoken to Camden Council about CCTV, though they generally delete their records after 30 days, they advised that there still could have been a chance that they hadn't yet done that, but it would have definitely been deleted by the time I knew about the dispute in liability.  And, though I'm not fully sure about this...for legal reasons, my insurers have to request the CCTV and it can only be sent to them, not to me.