Car accident - Not my fault

400ixl

thecrater said:

Am I being unreasonable in expecting my insurance company to be on my side and prove me right especially given the damage to my car? 

It requires the 3rd party insurer to accept that position. Until then you are deemed as possibly at fault and as such they can require you to pay your excess and to have that refunded should the 3rd party accept their insured was at fault.

What they insurer has said regarding repairers is correct for most policies. If you choose to go to your own then you are on your own as far as any courtesy car goes, also to managing the quality of the work and the warranty of that work into the future. So if the repairer doesn't do it to your satisfaction, it is your responsibility to get them to re-do anything. Through their own repairer they are liable and have influence over the repairer.

I would check to see who your Toyota dealer would send the car to if it is not guaranteed to be in house. The number of times you find out that actually it will end up in the same place and you just lose out on protection.

As for the comments about wheels. That is rubbish, if the wheel (assuming an alloy) was damaged (even just paint) and can be shown it was due to the accident it will get repaired. A scratched tyre is strange description, if it is damaged in for example a chunk it taken out of the sidewall exposing the carcass then of course it will be replaced. If it is just marked and perfectly safe then no it wouldn't be replaced. This would be the same for both repairers as they have to get approval from the insurer.

The engineer you have spoken too from the Toyota garage has been telling you porkies to sell their services. Both garages will be trying to get as much work on every car they can as its all work and profit for them.

I would be looking at the reputation of the approved repairer and trying to find family and friends who have had work done by them.

[Deleted User]

This will probably go 50/50 if you admit to your insurer that you are partly to blame for the accident. Trying to get past him instead of waiting, when you could see he was turning, makes you partly liable.

Your only hope now is that the guy tells his insurance he is 100% at fault and doesn't give them enough detail to realise that you contributed to the accident.

thecrater

DanDare999 said:

thecrater said:

Surely, they would be able to tell from the damage to my car that it couldn't have been a case of changing lanes! he was doing a 3 point U turn and was still reversing when I passed him. He started moving forward and hit me. The fact that he hit the passenger door and it needs to be replaced now clearly proves that I couldn't have been changing lanes and hit the left corner of his van. It also proves that I had enough clearance to move hence the hit to the rear passenger door on the right. It shows that he did not look before changing gears to move forward. It's difficult to describe but surely the engineer who inspects the car will be able to tell right? 

Am I being unreasonable in expecting my insurance company to be on my side and prove me right especially given the damage to my car? 

Given what you've said an element of this accident is down to you, you'll be lucky to get out of this with 100% his fault. 

What element is down to me? 

facade

thecrater said:

DanDare999 said:

thecrater said:

Surely, they would be able to tell from the damage to my car that it couldn't have been a case of changing lanes! he was doing a 3 point U turn and was still reversing when I passed him. He started moving forward and hit me. The fact that he hit the passenger door and it needs to be replaced now clearly proves that I couldn't have been changing lanes and hit the left corner of his van. It also proves that I had enough clearance to move hence the hit to the rear passenger door on the right. It shows that he did not look before changing gears to move forward. It's difficult to describe but surely the engineer who inspects the car will be able to tell right? 

Am I being unreasonable in expecting my insurance company to be on my side and prove me right especially given the damage to my car? 

Given what you've said an element of this accident is down to you, you'll be lucky to get out of this with 100% his fault. 

What element is down to me? 

You drove across the front of someone who was halfway through a 3-point turn, and very likely just about to move forwards.

macman

It's much cheaper for both insurers to settle on a knock for knock basis than to litigate, so that's why they tend to go 50/50.
Unless you have real evidence, it's your word against his.

daveyjp

thecrater said:

Surely, they would be able to tell from the damage to my car that it couldn't have been a case of changing lanes! he was doing a 3 point U turn and was still reversing when I passed him. He started moving forward and hit me. The fact that he hit the passenger door and it needs to be replaced now clearly proves that I couldn't have been changing lanes and hit the left corner of his van. It also proves that I had enough clearance to move hence the hit to the rear passenger door on the right. It shows that he did not look before changing gears to move forward. It's difficult to describe but surely the engineer who inspects the car will be able to tell right? 

Am I being unreasonable in expecting my insurance company to be on my side and prove me right especially given the damage to my car? 

If this is your evidence for the insurance company you aren't blame free.

thecrater

thank you all for your advice and contribution.

UPDATE:
I spoke to the company that my insurance company referred me to. They are an accident management company so they don't actually carry out the repair. They simply arrange the courtesy car and the repair garage. 

As regards the Toyota garage, they carry out the work in their workshop which is a couple of miles down the road from me. 

Thank you all very much for the advice. I will ask the Toyota garage about their repair warranty. They said they would offer a courtesy car for the duration of the repair. 

DullGreyGuy

macman said:

It's much cheaper for both insurers to settle on a knock for knock basis than to litigate, so that's why they tend to go 50/50.
Unless you have real evidence, it's your word against his.

Knock for knock and 50/50 are totally different things... in the former each parties carry their own losses and in the later each party settles 50% of the others claim. With near identical damage the economic impact of the two are similar in the round (though worse off for insureds who cant get back 50% of their excess) but where one party has sustained more damage or injuries then clearly they are economically very different.

Knock for knock arrangements between insurers had all ended a long time ago when I first worked in claims back in the 90s.., clearly two private individuals can still agree not to claim from one another. 

Stateofart

I had an accident like this.  They didn't accept blame and went silent for months, then even denied they even had an accident.  Cars were taken away so that didn't help.  Police were non-commital.  Took about nine months in the end and they deemed it 50/50 fault.  Got the money for the car and that was that.  Quite stressful tbh.

DanDare999

Stateofart said:

I had an accident like this.  They didn't accept blame and went silent for months, then even denied they even had an accident.  Cars were taken away so that didn't help.  Police were non-commital.  Took about nine months in the end and they deemed it 50/50 fault.  Got the money for the car and that was that.  Quite stressful tbh.

What did you expect from the police, prosecution of both parties?