Car accident

Cathartic

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

Thanks for this. Unfortunately this is what I feared. Someone from the insurance company said something similar but without going into as much detail. I doubt I would go to the lengths of a court case as I appreciate that without concrete evidence it is just my word against someone else's so my chances of success would remain 50/50

In court it would be different... insurers do 50/50 not because they believe both are equally to blame for the accident but because they cannot work it out and over the 100,000 claims a year like this they deal with its better not to role the dice with the added cost of court 

In court the judge HAS to decide what is most likely to have happened and rule on liability based on that... so if you say you were in lane and they cut in whereas they say they were in lane and you cut in  then both of those cannot be true so the judge either decides he believe one of you over the other or they decide you are both wrong and you both strayed into the chevroned section. 

This where you start thinking who is the more believable witness to the judge? The middle age nurse on her way home from volunteering providing palliative care or the 17 year old guy with 4 mates in the car on the way back from the nightclub? No one wants to be prejudiced but... Too much risk for an insurer who'll have to be paying for legal representation which is unrecoverable in cases under £10,000

Whilst I have no doubt that I would be the more believable party the benefits just don't seem worth the hassle of going to court. Even if I were to be successful how would damages/costs etc be determined?

DullGreyGuy

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

Thanks for this. Unfortunately this is what I feared. Someone from the insurance company said something similar but without going into as much detail. I doubt I would go to the lengths of a court case as I appreciate that without concrete evidence it is just my word against someone else's so my chances of success would remain 50/50

In court it would be different... insurers do 50/50 not because they believe both are equally to blame for the accident but because they cannot work it out and over the 100,000 claims a year like this they deal with its better not to role the dice with the added cost of court 

In court the judge HAS to decide what is most likely to have happened and rule on liability based on that... so if you say you were in lane and they cut in whereas they say they were in lane and you cut in  then both of those cannot be true so the judge either decides he believe one of you over the other or they decide you are both wrong and you both strayed into the chevroned section. 

This where you start thinking who is the more believable witness to the judge? The middle age nurse on her way home from volunteering providing palliative care or the 17 year old guy with 4 mates in the car on the way back from the nightclub? No one wants to be prejudiced but... Too much risk for an insurer who'll have to be paying for legal representation which is unrecoverable in cases under £10,000

Whilst I have no doubt that I would be the more believable party the benefits just don't seem worth the hassle of going to court. Even if I were to be successful how would damages/costs etc be determined?

The insurance world is odd and full of gentleman's agreements between competitors. Typically we would speak to the other insurer and both would agree to keep their costs out of the legal action but honour the courts agreement. So you would sue them for your excess, they would defend and counter claim for their excess. As such the claimed amounts are small and court costs proportional.

If an agreement cannot be reached between the insurers, you have to sue for the full cost of your claim, your excess etc, they countersue for the same and the court costs are higher. The risk is if the case goes over £10,000 or there are injuries involved then legal fees start being able to be added. 

It requires you and the technical teams at your insurers to have a good line of communication. Have known policyholders to go rouge and issue their own proceedings without discussion for their Excess or such. They've won but as we had no agreement we cannot recover out outlay and it remains a fault claim.

Aretnap

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

Thanks for this. Unfortunately this is what I feared. Someone from the insurance company said something similar but without going into as much detail. I doubt I would go to the lengths of a court case as I appreciate that without concrete evidence it is just my word against someone else's so my chances of success would remain 50/50

In court it would be different... insurers do 50/50 not because they believe both are equally to blame for the accident but because they cannot work it out and over the 100,000 claims a year like this they deal with its better not to role the dice with the added cost of court 

In court the judge HAS to decide what is most likely to have happened and rule on liability based on that... so if you say you were in lane and they cut in whereas they say they were in lane and you cut in  then both of those cannot be true so the judge either decides he believe one of you over the other or they decide you are both wrong and you both strayed into the chevroned section. 

This where you start thinking who is the more believable witness to the judge? The middle age nurse on her way home from volunteering providing palliative care or the 17 year old guy with 4 mates in the car on the way back from the nightclub? No one wants to be prejudiced but... Too much risk for an insurer who'll have to be paying for legal representation which is unrecoverable in cases under £10,000

Whilst I have no doubt that I would be the more believable party the benefits just don't seem worth the hassle of going to court. Even if I were to be successful how would damages/costs etc be determined?

Damages are easy - whatever the repair bill for your car was, plus any other expenses that you reasonably incurred as a result of the accident, such as the cost of a hire car while yours was being repaired.

Costs... well if the amount being claimed is under £10000 then costs are not usually recoverable anyway (beyond travelling expenses and a few other minor things) so there is no need to calculate them. Any money you spent on a lawyer would be gone forever, win or lose. (The flip side is that is the other party brings an expensive lawyer, you won't end up paying his fee if you lose)

RogerPensionGuy

Cathartic said:

Hi all. Advice needed please. I had a car accident about a month ago, 100% not my fault. I was in a left only filter lane at a roundabout intending to take that exit when I was hit on the front offside wing by another vehicle which cut across into my lane from nowhere forcing me into the nearside kerb. My lane is clearly demarcated and separated from the others by Chevron markings on the road on a pink background. My problem is that the other driver is lying about what happened and has claimed that I left my lane and drove into him! Unfortunately I have no dash cam or witnesses (other than my wife who was with me) and despite trying to obtain CCTV footage from the area it seems that the incident hasn't been captured. Whilst investigations are still continuing I have been told that if no proof can be provided as to exactly what happened then it will likely go down as a 50/50 incident i.e. both drivers at fault. I'm absolutely fuming about the situation as this has repercussions on my future premiums as well as the excess I have to pay to have my own car repaired and all because someone couldn't be honest enough to tell the truth. I had only owned the car for a week when this happened! My question is do I have anywhere to go legally from here in terms of challenging the outcome of the investigation or not accepting the findings etc assuming the 50/50 situation is the outcome?

Did the left lane say "Left Only"

Or was there just an advisory turn left information somewhere. 

Cathartic

RogerPensionGuy said:

Cathartic said:

Hi all. Advice needed please. I had a car accident about a month ago, 100% not my fault. I was in a left only filter lane at a roundabout intending to take that exit when I was hit on the front offside wing by another vehicle which cut across into my lane from nowhere forcing me into the nearside kerb. My lane is clearly demarcated and separated from the others by Chevron markings on the road on a pink background. My problem is that the other driver is lying about what happened and has claimed that I left my lane and drove into him! Unfortunately I have no dash cam or witnesses (other than my wife who was with me) and despite trying to obtain CCTV footage from the area it seems that the incident hasn't been captured. Whilst investigations are still continuing I have been told that if no proof can be provided as to exactly what happened then it will likely go down as a 50/50 incident i.e. both drivers at fault. I'm absolutely fuming about the situation as this has repercussions on my future premiums as well as the excess I have to pay to have my own car repaired and all because someone couldn't be honest enough to tell the truth. I had only owned the car for a week when this happened! My question is do I have anywhere to go legally from here in terms of challenging the outcome of the investigation or not accepting the findings etc assuming the 50/50 situation is the outcome?

Did the left lane say "Left Only"

Or was there just an advisory turn left information somewhere. 

No signage as the road markings make it clear that the lane is a filter lane for the first exit only hence the chevrons and also why there is no give way as there is in all the other lanes

Cathartic

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

Thanks for this. Unfortunately this is what I feared. Someone from the insurance company said something similar but without going into as much detail. I doubt I would go to the lengths of a court case as I appreciate that without concrete evidence it is just my word against someone else's so my chances of success would remain 50/50

In court it would be different... insurers do 50/50 not because they believe both are equally to blame for the accident but because they cannot work it out and over the 100,000 claims a year like this they deal with its better not to role the dice with the added cost of court 

In court the judge HAS to decide what is most likely to have happened and rule on liability based on that... so if you say you were in lane and they cut in whereas they say they were in lane and you cut in  then both of those cannot be true so the judge either decides he believe one of you over the other or they decide you are both wrong and you both strayed into the chevroned section. 

This where you start thinking who is the more believable witness to the judge? The middle age nurse on her way home from volunteering providing palliative care or the 17 year old guy with 4 mates in the car on the way back from the nightclub? No one wants to be prejudiced but... Too much risk for an insurer who'll have to be paying for legal representation which is unrecoverable in cases under £10,000

Whilst I have no doubt that I would be the more believable party the benefits just don't seem worth the hassle of going to court. Even if I were to be successful how would damages/costs etc be determined?

The insurance world is odd and full of gentleman's agreements between competitors. Typically we would speak to the other insurer and both would agree to keep their costs out of the legal action but honour the courts agreement. So you would sue them for your excess, they would defend and counter claim for their excess. As such the claimed amounts are small and court costs proportional.

If an agreement cannot be reached between the insurers, you have to sue for the full cost of your claim, your excess etc, they countersue for the same and the court costs are higher. The risk is if the case goes over £10,000 or there are injuries involved then legal fees start being able to be added. 

It requires you and the technical teams at your insurers to have a good line of communication. Have known policyholders to go rouge and issue their own proceedings without discussion for their Excess or such. They've won but as we had no agreement we cannot recover out outlay and it remains a fault claim.

A friend of mine works for the financial ombudsman and suggested possibly taking the case to them if the outcome isn't satisfactory. Would this be an option and if so would they only determine whether the car was handled in the correct manner or could they change the outcome based on the facts at hand?

Cathartic

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

Thanks for this. Unfortunately this is what I feared. Someone from the insurance company said something similar but without going into as much detail. I doubt I would go to the lengths of a court case as I appreciate that without concrete evidence it is just my word against someone else's so my chances of success would remain 50/50

In court it would be different... insurers do 50/50 not because they believe both are equally to blame for the accident but because they cannot work it out and over the 100,000 claims a year like this they deal with its better not to role the dice with the added cost of court 

In court the judge HAS to decide what is most likely to have happened and rule on liability based on that... so if you say you were in lane and they cut in whereas they say they were in lane and you cut in  then both of those cannot be true so the judge either decides he believe one of you over the other or they decide you are both wrong and you both strayed into the chevroned section. 

This where you start thinking who is the more believable witness to the judge? The middle age nurse on her way home from volunteering providing palliative care or the 17 year old guy with 4 mates in the car on the way back from the nightclub? No one wants to be prejudiced but... Too much risk for an insurer who'll have to be paying for legal representation which is unrecoverable in cases under £10,000

Whilst I have no doubt that I would be the more believable party the benefits just don't seem worth the hassle of going to court. Even if I were to be successful how would damages/costs etc be determined?

The insurance world is odd and full of gentleman's agreements between competitors. Typically we would speak to the other insurer and both would agree to keep their costs out of the legal action but honour the courts agreement. So you would sue them for your excess, they would defend and counter claim for their excess. As such the claimed amounts are small and court costs proportional.

If an agreement cannot be reached between the insurers, you have to sue for the full cost of your claim, your excess etc, they countersue for the same and the court costs are higher. The risk is if the case goes over £10,000 or there are injuries involved then legal fees start being able to be added. 

It requires you and the technical teams at your insurers to have a good line of communication. Have known policyholders to go rouge and issue their own proceedings without discussion for their Excess or such. They've won but as we had no agreement we cannot recover out outlay and it remains a fault claim.

A friend of mine works for the financial ombudsman and suggested possibly taking the case to them if the outcome isn't satisfactory. Would this be an option and if so would they only determine whether the car was handled in the correct manner or could they change the outcome based on the facts at hand?

*Case was handled (not "car"!)

DullGreyGuy

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

Thanks for this. Unfortunately this is what I feared. Someone from the insurance company said something similar but without going into as much detail. I doubt I would go to the lengths of a court case as I appreciate that without concrete evidence it is just my word against someone else's so my chances of success would remain 50/50

In court it would be different... insurers do 50/50 not because they believe both are equally to blame for the accident but because they cannot work it out and over the 100,000 claims a year like this they deal with its better not to role the dice with the added cost of court 

In court the judge HAS to decide what is most likely to have happened and rule on liability based on that... so if you say you were in lane and they cut in whereas they say they were in lane and you cut in  then both of those cannot be true so the judge either decides he believe one of you over the other or they decide you are both wrong and you both strayed into the chevroned section. 

This where you start thinking who is the more believable witness to the judge? The middle age nurse on her way home from volunteering providing palliative care or the 17 year old guy with 4 mates in the car on the way back from the nightclub? No one wants to be prejudiced but... Too much risk for an insurer who'll have to be paying for legal representation which is unrecoverable in cases under £10,000

Whilst I have no doubt that I would be the more believable party the benefits just don't seem worth the hassle of going to court. Even if I were to be successful how would damages/costs etc be determined?

The insurance world is odd and full of gentleman's agreements between competitors. Typically we would speak to the other insurer and both would agree to keep their costs out of the legal action but honour the courts agreement. So you would sue them for your excess, they would defend and counter claim for their excess. As such the claimed amounts are small and court costs proportional.

If an agreement cannot be reached between the insurers, you have to sue for the full cost of your claim, your excess etc, they countersue for the same and the court costs are higher. The risk is if the case goes over £10,000 or there are injuries involved then legal fees start being able to be added. 

It requires you and the technical teams at your insurers to have a good line of communication. Have known policyholders to go rouge and issue their own proceedings without discussion for their Excess or such. They've won but as we had no agreement we cannot recover out outlay and it remains a fault claim.

A friend of mine works for the financial ombudsman and suggested possibly taking the case to them if the outcome isn't satisfactory. Would this be an option and if so would they only determine whether the car was handled in the correct manner or could they change the outcome based on the facts at hand?

Its your right to take it to them if you disagree and your not happy with the outcome of your complaint.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3362027.pdf

The above is a reasonable case to have a look at from the ombudsman, you'll note the FOS state its not their role to actually challenge the decision on liability but it can challenge the process the insurer went through to come to their determination... eg if the insured had given details of an independent witness and the insurer had failed to attempt to get a statement from them etc.