Esure & RTC Fault Dispute Liability

Glassart26

Good afternoon All,
My husband was stationary waiting in traffic and was hit from rear side driver side bumper and passenger door by a large Haulage flatbed vehicle on Grey's Inn Road on the morning of Friday 21st August 2020. Unfortunately, he did not take any situation photos at the time as this road is a major traffic route and wanted to get out of the way. He only took photos of the  Haulage Vehicle and noted his details. We advised our insurer, Esure and they pursued the claim as a Non-Fault Claim. We received great service overall. Got the hire car from Auxillus and the damage to our car was repaired. The damage did not impact the road worthiness of the car. The third party insurers were sent the costs on 8th September by Esure. On 21st September, they disputed liability claiming that they were stationary and that my husband hit them. By the time I was informed by Esure, on 28th September by letter to contact them, it was conveniently after the point at which I could obtain CCTV from Camden Council. ie The council keep CCTV on file for 30 days, after which it is deleted. I had requested it anyway and have spoken to them but they don't have any videos of that date.

Our position is as follows:
My husband was stationary waiting in traffic on the one way road close to the bus lane. The Haulage Vehicle was approaching Grey's Inn Road from the right side turning right onto Grey's Inn Road and as he turned in, he hit my husband. 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 Driver is claiming that he was stationary and that my husband drove into him. 
I have asked for a full account of their version of events, but this is all I have been told. 

My argument is that: If my husband was in motion and they were stationary, 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. 
Esure has advised that their engineer could see both scenarios as plausible and because there is no independent proof that either vehicle was stationary, today they concluded the claim as 50:50 Partial Fault and we will have to pay 50% of the access fee. 
Based on the damage on my car, I completely disagree with this. We do have motor legal cover.
Please can anyone advise? 
We are no longer with Esure as we feel that they have not fought for our best interest.
Thanks so much for your help and advice

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".

Sandtree

Glassart26 said:

We are no longer with Esure as we feel that they have not fought for our best interest.

A 50/50 settlement means that they can only recover 50% of their payments too and so its as much their interests as it is yours. They are just more experienced and less emotive so can be more pragmatic on what, on average, is the best outcome.

You need to speak to Esure and try to convince them to continue pursuing the matter but ultimately they have the legal right to settle the claim as they see fit with the third party even if its against your wishes. I can be worth them asking for a copy of the driver statement and if they have cameras on the lorry that captured the incident. I've occasionally seen cases where because of the number of hands things pass with commercial vehicles (driver to boss to fleet manager to insurance broker to insurer etc) that occasionally things get flipped in the chinese whispers but its a long shot.