Without Judgement Claim Settlement

cvm9

Hi all.
I was wondering if anyone could advise me regarding a Without Judgement Claim Settlement that has been offered to me by the Third Party's insurance following a car accident. 
In April I was involved in a collision with a takeaway delivery driver. He was on the wrong side of the road going at a ridiculous speed and despite my best efforts to avoid him I ended up being pinned to a church on my side of the road and crossing over the white lines you are not meant to drive across to protect the church. I took numerous photos of the incident in which it is clear he is on the wrong side of the road and responsible for the incident. I also have witnesses. He was also issued with a 'no insurance' ticket by Police as he was delivering food but did not have the proper insurance to cover this. 
My claim handler has submitted all evidence including the photos to the third party's insurance. It sounds like his insurance has instructed their client to accept liability but he will not. As such, it sounds like they are trying to settle this through a 'Without Judgement Claim Settlement' and aren't really dealing with him anymore.  
I have done some research on this and spoke to my personal injury solicitor as I suffered some significant injuries from the incident. He basically confirmed that they will pay out to my insurance company for their costs and also pay out for my personal injury claim but not accept any liability. They will try and negotiate a settlement. 
I have some questions that I am someone can answer for me. 
1) If I accept this type of settlement will I get my excess back? I have been told by my insurance company that I will only get it back if they admit liability. Technically speaking the 'without judgement' does not accept liability. 
2) If I accept this type of settlement will my premium increase and will my NCD be affected in anyway? I assume so as no-one has admitted fault technically. 

It sounds like the third party's insurance company aren't the most professional. They are not answering or responding to calls from my personal injury solicitor or claims handler. They have 7 days left to offer a settlement with with regards to the 'without judgement settlement' or they may be issued with proceedings again to put pressure on them. 

I am thinking that if I do not get my excess back, and my NCD and premium will be affected by this kind of claim settlement I am prepared to go to Court to fight my corner based on the evidence thus far. I am aware a 'without judgement' settlement offer cannot be referred to in a Court room setting despite the third party insurance company offering me this. 
My final question is this, based on the photo evidence (see attachments) do you think I have a realistic chance at Court? I have many more photos but I will not upload them all. As you can see I have tried to avoid collision by moving over as far as I could to the point I am pinned against the church. My drivers side wheel which is turned inward reflects this. The photos clearly depict the third driver on the other side of the road. 
Any help, knowledge, or advice will be much appreciate. 
Thanks, 

KimJongUn88

Do you mean a without prejudice settlement?

Sandtree

It is a "without prejudice" basis.

You personal injury lawyer will recover your excess and any other out of pocket expenses from the third party insurers, the lack of admitting liability is only a technicality. 

Fault as far as an insurer is concerned is nothing to do with blame but if they end up with a net outlay or not at the end of the claim. Assuming the third party insurer settle the subjugated claim on the same basis your insurers will be reimbursed and close the file as non-fault. If this will impact future premiums varies by insurer... some dont put any loading on for a single non-fault accident where as others do. You will have to declare the claim for 3-5 years (again varies by insurer asking the Q). The fact its was a without prejudice settlement will make no difference.

cvm9

Hi all, apologies you are correct the thread should read 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE'. 

AdrianC

cvm9 said:

I was wondering if anyone could advise me regarding a Without Judgement Claim Settlement that has been offered to me by the Third Party's insurance following a car accident. 
In April I was involved in a collision with a takeaway delivery driver. He was on the wrong side of the road going at a ridiculous speed and despite my best efforts to avoid him I ended up being pinned to a church on my side of the road and crossing over the white lines you are not meant to drive across to protect the church. I took numerous photos of the incident in which it is clear he is on the wrong side of the road and responsible for the incident. I also have witnesses. He was also issued with a 'no insurance' ticket by Police as he was delivering food but did not have the proper insurance to cover this. 
My claim handler has submitted all evidence including the photos to the third party's insurance. It sounds like his insurance has instructed their client to accept liability but he will not.

That shouldn't matter, because his insurance is legally bound to pay out if he's at fault - and they retain the right to determine if he's at fault without his acquiescence.

1) If I accept this type of settlement will I get my excess back? I have been told by my insurance company that I will only get it back if they admit liability. Technically speaking the 'without judgement' does not accept liability.

So long as they don't end up out of pocket, you should be fine.

2) If I accept this type of settlement will my premium increase

Almost certainly yes, because you've now got a collision to declare, even if it's no-fault, so they see you as a higher risk.

and will my NCD be affected in anyway?

Again, if your insurer is not out of pocket...

My final question is this, based on the photo evidence (see attachments) do you think I have a realistic chance at Court?

I can't see why they're doing anything but just paying up straight off.

BOWFER

My wife and my mother were both involved in 'no fault' accidents relatively recently, neither noticed any difference in their insurance premiums.
I did the comparison site quotes for them both and tried both scenarios (declaring and not declaring), so I could see if there was a difference.
I suppose the answer is 'not necessarily, shop around'
Before anyone inevitably jumps on this, yes we declared the accidents when it came to actually buying the policies, I only tried the 'no accident' scenario for curiosity.

[Deleted User]

delete 123

AdrianC

[DELETED USER] said:

You were trying to protect a church?!

That's not a typo?

Have you looked at the photos?

cvm9

[DELETED USER] said:

You were trying to protect a church?!

That's not a typo?

Apologies my grammar may have lead you astray here.

Basically I could see the other driver on the wrong side of the road and I’ve crossed over the white lines that are in place to stop people driving to close to the church and not damage the building. I’ve moved so far across but eventually ran out of room to the point I’m pinned against the church. 

Kind of hard to explain but if you look at the photos and read this post it might make more sense! 

Thanks. 

Aretnap

Sandtree said:

Assuming the third party insurer settle the subjugated claim on the same basis your insurers will be reimbursed and close the file as non-fault.

Will the settle the subrogated claim though? I was under the impression that a claim of this type, where the driver's use of the vehicle (delivering takeaways) is not covered by the policy, falls outside the scope of s151 of the Road Traffic Act and ends up being a MIB claim. The third party insurer deals with it on behalf of the MIB under Article 75 but it's still dealt with under MIB rules, and MIB rules don't allow for subrogated claims. In other words they still have to pay out to the OP for his injuries and any other uninsured losses, but they can tell his insurers to take a long walk off the proverbial if they try to recover the repair costs for the car.

The OP suggests that he's been told that the third party insurers are going to settle the claim with his insurers; is there a reason why they might do this despite apparently not having to, or is it possible that the OP has misunderstood?

born_again

Don't take this the wrong way,
But where is the wrong side of the road. As there are no white lines.

It is clear that they did not stick close to the kerb, but if they were going fast then that may explain why, given it appears to be quite a sharp & blind bend into a narrow road. So they were opening up their view round the corner.