50/50 Roundabout Claim

ericbell1304

Hi

Can anyone advise where I stand on an old claim dating back September 2020 which raises it's head this time every year.  The insurance company keep coming back claiming that the 3rd party are disputing my evidence and claim that I was signalling right on the roundabout.  I entered at 6 o'clock and was leaving at 3 o'clock and was almost into the exit when hit by the 3rd party on the rear passenger wheel arch.

Court papers were sent to the 3rd party who immediately settled out of court but claimed no liability.  The solicitors have advised me on a couple of occasions that the case is closed.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Lesley Bell

huckster

Did the third party settle in full and confirm this payment in writing ?

If so, my argument would be that the third party was sent a court claim which noted basis for claim and they accepted by paying the amount of claim, but outside of court claim process.

Go back to the Insurers that dealt with the claim to argue that based on the above argument, the claim should be noted as non fault. If they disagree to issue letter confirming their reasons as a final letter, to allow immediate referral to the FOS.

ericbell1304

The solicitor made full recovery (100%) of my excess and settled the claim in my favour but the insurance company are still claiming 50/50 fault? Is this possible?

huckster

Yes, if they believe the third party could still within statute of limitation period submit a Court claim related to this accident. Based on accident information, they believe it could be judged as 50/50.

Have the Insurers stated this as reason for keeping the claim record as 50/50 ?

The decision is essentially financial. They penalise you with a fault claim record to generate higher premiums, just in case third party makes a claim.

Aretnap

It is possible to settle part of a claim on a "without prejudice" basis (ie without admitting liability) while continuing to dispute liability for the claim as a whole.

One reason an insurance company might do this is where there is an injury claim involved. If the other driver was injured (or is claiming that he was) then his insurers might settle the vehicle damage part of the claim on a without prejudice basis to allow him to keep pursuing his own injury claim against your insurers.If this has happened then your insurer would be right to keep the claim open until the injury claim is settled (or has obviously fizzled out).

Alternatively it would be possible for the third party insurer to pay your small excess on a without prejudice basis (to get your particularly tenacious solicitor off their backs) while continuing to argue with your own insurer about liability for the much larger bulk of the repair cost. In which case your insurer would treat it as a fault claim unless and until the third party insurer paid up for the full repair cost.

There isn't really enough information in your post to be sure if exactly what's happened, but there are scenarios where your insurer could be right here - you really need to clarify exactly what is holding the process up with them.

ericbell1304

Thanks.
I believe it's because they are taking the stance that both parties are claiming he said/she said and neither party have independent witnesses. However I'm taking the stance that I was already on the roundabout which he isn't disputing and the highway code clearly states that I have right of way and I was also hit on the rear?

dunstonh

The majority of roundabout accidents are treated as 50/50 unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.

ericbell1304

Thanks for all the comments

DullGreyGuy

ericbell1304 said:

Can anyone advise where I stand on an old claim dating back September 2020 which raises it's head this time every year. 

You need to speak to the insurer, presumably its yours not theirs, and find out where they are what they're doing... is it them or the otherside restarting the process annually.

It does sound like your lawyers may not have liaised properly with your insurers as their outlay should have been included in the litigation unless the two insurers agreed to keep their outlays out and just honour the outcome.