pay excess before Admiral will confirm liability

thegentleart

Hi,

My partner was involved in a car accident. She was overtaking a slow moving van but once along side the van, the van driver pulled out without indicating. My partner tried to avoid him but her nearside front bumper hit the van's rear quarter offside. There isn't much damage, just a scuff that she would like fixed.

Admiral has told her that the van driver is not claiming and won't decide liability unless she pays her excess first. Is that right? You have to pay your excess first before the insurer will settle liability? My only experience of car accidents is the other driver was at fault and I didn't have to pay my excess so seems strange to me to have to pay the excess.

Thanks for the help.

EDIT: just to clarify why my partner wants to establish liabiltiy before paying her excess: she won't want to claim on her insurance if the insurers decide she's (partly) at fault. Would rather pay for the repairs ourselves and keep her no claims discount. Seems clear cut to me that the van driver is 100% at fault but insurers might not agree.
EDIT: Admiral has told her that the van driver is not claiming.

williamgriffin

thegentleart said:

Hi,

My partner was involved in a car accident. She was overtaking a slow moving van but once along side the van, the van driver pulled out without indicating. My partner tried to avoid him but her nearside front bumper hit the van's rear quarter offside. There isn't much damage, just a scuff that she would like fixed.

Admiral has told her that the van driver is claiming and won't decide liability unless she pays her excess first. Is that right? You have to pay your excess first before the insurer will settle liability? My only experience of car accidents is the other driver was at fault and I didn't have to pay my excess so seems strange to me to have to pay the excess.

Thanks for the help.

EDIT: just to clarify why my partner wants to establish liabiltiy before paying her excess: she won't want to claim on her insurance if the insurers decide she's (partly) at fault. Would rather pay for the repairs ourselves and keep her no claims discount. Seems clear cut to me that the van driver is 100% at fault but insurers might not agree.

Without an independent witness your partner will be at least partly to blame.

It easily sounds like she ran into the rear of the van when it's was already completing its intended manoeuvre. 

George_Michael

thegentleart said:

she won't want to claim on her insurance if the insurers decide she's (partly) at fault. Would rather pay for the repairs ourselves and keep her no claims discount. Seems clear cut to me that the van driver is 100% at fault but insurers might not agree.

If the insurance decides that she was partly at fault then even if you pay for the repairs to her vehicle, there will still be an impact on her no claims if the insurer pays out anything to the other driver.
To be honest, I think it's very unlikely that your partner will be able to get out of it with zero liability for the accident.

AdrianC

It's already a claim against her policy, which she's going to need to declare, because the other party is claiming and pointing at her.
She can't say it never happened.
It's an at-fault claim until the insurers agree the other party was entirely at fault, and your OH was entirely innocent.

From what you say, I can easily see this going 50/50 - unless there's any other evidence such as dashcam.
The van was moving slowly, then "pulled out"...
How slowly?
What was the speed limit and the prevailing traffic conditions?
But why did it "pull out" if it was already moving?
Did it move right to avoid something stationary in front?
Moved from the kerb to the normal road position? How wide a road?
Did it turned right into a junction? Or a driveway?
How much space was she giving it?
Where on the road was she?
Was there oncoming traffic?
Did she hit the horn?
Her front bumper hit the van's rear side - couldn't she just have hit the brakes?
Was the van already moving over when she started to pull alongside it?

So many ways in which this could be partly her fault... and there are only two people who were there, both of whom have a vested interest in the outcome.

thegentleart

williamgriffin said:

thegentleart said:

Hi,

My partner was involved in a car accident. She was overtaking a slow moving van but once along side the van, the van driver pulled out without indicating. My partner tried to avoid him but her nearside front bumper hit the van's rear quarter offside. There isn't much damage, just a scuff that she would like fixed.

Admiral has told her that the van driver is claiming and won't decide liability unless she pays her excess first. Is that right? You have to pay your excess first before the insurer will settle liability? My only experience of car accidents is the other driver was at fault and I didn't have to pay my excess so seems strange to me to have to pay the excess.

Thanks for the help.

EDIT: just to clarify why my partner wants to establish liabiltiy before paying her excess: she won't want to claim on her insurance if the insurers decide she's (partly) at fault. Would rather pay for the repairs ourselves and keep her no claims discount. Seems clear cut to me that the van driver is 100% at fault but insurers might not agree.

Without an independent witness your partner will be at least partly to blame.

It easily sounds like she ran into the rear of the van when it's was already completing its intended manoeuvre. 

I don't think it easily sounds like she ran into the rear of the van when the damage to both vehicles is on the side...

thegentleart

AdrianC said:

It's already a claim against her policy, which she's going to need to declare, because the other party is claiming and pointing at her.
She can't say it never happened.
It's an at-fault claim until the insurers agree the other party was entirely at fault, and your OH was entirely innocent.

From what you say, I can easily see this going 50/50 - unless there's any other evidence such as dashcam.
The van was moving slowly, then "pulled out"...
How slowly?
What was the speed limit and the prevailing traffic conditions?
But why did it "pull out" if it was already moving?
Did it move right to avoid something stationary in front?
Moved from the kerb to the normal road position? How wide a road?
Did it turned right into a junction? Or a driveway?
How much space was she giving it?
Where on the road was she?
Was there oncoming traffic?
Did she hit the horn?
Her front bumper hit the van's rear side - couldn't she just have hit the brakes?
Was the van already moving over when she started to pull alongside it?

So many ways in which this could be partly her fault... and there are only two people who were there, both of whom have a vested interest in the outcome.

It's not a claim (yet). It's recorded as an incident. The other driver is not claiming.
She is not trying to say it never happened.
In answer to your questions:
How slowly? Very slowly, about 10-15mph.
What was the speed limit and the prevailing traffic conditions? 40mph
But why did it "pull out" if it was already moving? he wanted to overtake vehicle in front of him
Did it move right to avoid something stationary in front? no
Moved from the kerb to the normal road position? sorry what?
How wide a road? I would estimate 6-7m
Did it turned right into a junction? Or a driveway? no
How much space was she giving it? plenty
Where on the road was she? she was on the rhs
Was there oncoming traffic? no
Did she hit the horn? no, she didn't have time as she was tried to avoid him
Her front bumper hit the van's rear side - couldn't she just have hit the brakes? she did hit the brakes
Was the van already moving over when she started to pull alongside it? no

williamgriffin

thegentleart said:

williamgriffin said:

thegentleart said:

Hi,

My partner was involved in a car accident. She was overtaking a slow moving van but once along side the van, the van driver pulled out without indicating. My partner tried to avoid him but her nearside front bumper hit the van's rear quarter offside. There isn't much damage, just a scuff that she would like fixed.

Admiral has told her that the van driver is claiming and won't decide liability unless she pays her excess first. Is that right? You have to pay your excess first before the insurer will settle liability? My only experience of car accidents is the other driver was at fault and I didn't have to pay my excess so seems strange to me to have to pay the excess.

Thanks for the help.

EDIT: just to clarify why my partner wants to establish liabiltiy before paying her excess: she won't want to claim on her insurance if the insurers decide she's (partly) at fault. Would rather pay for the repairs ourselves and keep her no claims discount. Seems clear cut to me that the van driver is 100% at fault but insurers might not agree.

Without an independent witness your partner will be at least partly to blame.

It easily sounds like she ran into the rear of the van when it's was already completing its intended manoeuvre. 

I don't think it easily sounds like she ran into the rear of the van when the damage to both vehicles is on the side...

Rear side of the van front side of the car, not hard to work out who was in front. If she had stayed put it wouldn't have happened. 

williamgriffin

thegentleart said:

AdrianC said:

It's already a claim against her policy, which she's going to need to declare, because the other party is claiming and pointing at her.
She can't say it never happened.
It's an at-fault claim until the insurers agree the other party was entirely at fault, and your OH was entirely innocent.

From what you say, I can easily see this going 50/50 - unless there's any other evidence such as dashcam.
The van was moving slowly, then "pulled out"...
How slowly?
What was the speed limit and the prevailing traffic conditions?
But why did it "pull out" if it was already moving?
Did it move right to avoid something stationary in front?
Moved from the kerb to the normal road position? How wide a road?
Did it turned right into a junction? Or a driveway?
How much space was she giving it?
Where on the road was she?
Was there oncoming traffic?
Did she hit the horn?
Her front bumper hit the van's rear side - couldn't she just have hit the brakes?
Was the van already moving over when she started to pull alongside it?

So many ways in which this could be partly her fault... and there are only two people who were there, both of whom have a vested interest in the outcome.

It's not a claim (yet). It's recorded as an incident. The other driver is not claiming.
She is not trying to say it never happened.
In answer to your questions:
How slowly? Very slowly, about 10-15mph.
What was the speed limit and the prevailing traffic conditions? 40mph
But why did it "pull out" if it was already moving? he wanted to overtake vehicle in front of him
Did it move right to avoid something stationary in front? no
Moved from the kerb to the normal road position? sorry what?
How wide a road? I would estimate 6-7m
Did it turned right into a junction? Or a driveway? no
How much space was she giving it? plenty
Where on the road was she? she was on the rhs
Was there oncoming traffic? no
Did she hit the horn? no, she didn't have time as she was tried to avoid him
Her front bumper hit the van's rear side - couldn't she just have hit the brakes? she did hit the brakes
Was the van already moving over when she started to pull alongside it? no

Can she prove the van wasn't moving over when she started the overtake?

If not then she won't come out of this without any liability. 

thegentleart

williamgriffin said:

thegentleart said:

williamgriffin said:

thegentleart said:

Hi,

My partner was involved in a car accident. She was overtaking a slow moving van but once along side the van, the van driver pulled out without indicating. My partner tried to avoid him but her nearside front bumper hit the van's rear quarter offside. There isn't much damage, just a scuff that she would like fixed.

Admiral has told her that the van driver is claiming and won't decide liability unless she pays her excess first. Is that right? You have to pay your excess first before the insurer will settle liability? My only experience of car accidents is the other driver was at fault and I didn't have to pay my excess so seems strange to me to have to pay the excess.

Thanks for the help.

EDIT: just to clarify why my partner wants to establish liabiltiy before paying her excess: she won't want to claim on her insurance if the insurers decide she's (partly) at fault. Would rather pay for the repairs ourselves and keep her no claims discount. Seems clear cut to me that the van driver is 100% at fault but insurers might not agree.

Without an independent witness your partner will be at least partly to blame.

It easily sounds like she ran into the rear of the van when it's was already completing its intended manoeuvre. 

I don't think it easily sounds like she ran into the rear of the van when the damage to both vehicles is on the side...

Rear side of the van front side of the car, not hard to work out who was in front. If she had stayed put it wouldn't have happened. 

I agree if she had stayed home then it wouldn't have hapenned. Thank you for that.
I also agree the van was in front; it's pretty hard to overtake a vehicle that's behind you.

thegentleart

williamgriffin said:

thegentleart said:

AdrianC said:

It's already a claim against her policy, which she's going to need to declare, because the other party is claiming and pointing at her.
She can't say it never happened.
It's an at-fault claim until the insurers agree the other party was entirely at fault, and your OH was entirely innocent.

From what you say, I can easily see this going 50/50 - unless there's any other evidence such as dashcam.
The van was moving slowly, then "pulled out"...
How slowly?
What was the speed limit and the prevailing traffic conditions?
But why did it "pull out" if it was already moving?
Did it move right to avoid something stationary in front?
Moved from the kerb to the normal road position? How wide a road?
Did it turned right into a junction? Or a driveway?
How much space was she giving it?
Where on the road was she?
Was there oncoming traffic?
Did she hit the horn?
Her front bumper hit the van's rear side - couldn't she just have hit the brakes?
Was the van already moving over when she started to pull alongside it?

So many ways in which this could be partly her fault... and there are only two people who were there, both of whom have a vested interest in the outcome.

It's not a claim (yet). It's recorded as an incident. The other driver is not claiming.
She is not trying to say it never happened.
In answer to your questions:
How slowly? Very slowly, about 10-15mph.
What was the speed limit and the prevailing traffic conditions? 40mph
But why did it "pull out" if it was already moving? he wanted to overtake vehicle in front of him
Did it move right to avoid something stationary in front? no
Moved from the kerb to the normal road position? sorry what?
How wide a road? I would estimate 6-7m
Did it turned right into a junction? Or a driveway? no
How much space was she giving it? plenty
Where on the road was she? she was on the rhs
Was there oncoming traffic? no
Did she hit the horn? no, she didn't have time as she was tried to avoid him
Her front bumper hit the van's rear side - couldn't she just have hit the brakes? she did hit the brakes
Was the van already moving over when she started to pull alongside it? no

Can she prove the van wasn't moving over when she started the overtake?

If nit then she won't come out of this without any liability. 

No but does she need to? How is she going to get along side him if he started overtaking first?!

AdrianC

thegentleart said:

Admiral has told her that the van driver is claiming

thegentleart said:

It's not a claim (yet). It's recorded as an incident. The other driver is not claiming.

Would there be any chance of you giving us consistent, accurate information? Thank you.

She is not trying to say it never happened.

Great, so we're all agreed that for the next five years she's going to be telling insurers on proposal forms that it definitely happened. Might as well play nicely with the insurance process, then.

But why did it "pull out" if it was already moving?

he wanted to overtake vehicle in front of him

So there was a queue of vehicles doing 10-15mph, and your g/f - part way down the queue - decided that was was bored of this lark, she was going to overtake the whole queue ahead, and couldn't possibly foresee that the vehicle ahead of her in the queue might actually do that, too...?

Or does she simply not look further than the back end of the vehicle immediately in front?

Did she hit the horn?

no, she didn't have time as she was tried to avoid him

She had time to position herself to see if it was clear to overtake the entire slow-moving queue, to accelerate and move out, to get alongside the van enough that she still hit it even though she braked hard in a 40 limit (just four van lengths braking distance from 40mph to stationary, while the queue is travelling about half that distance each second), but not time to think "Oooh, I wonder if...", or to cover the horn button with a thumb just in case?

 And you wonder why this might not be seen as her simply being innocent...