Admiral Law Refusing to Pursue My Non-Fault Claim – What Can I Do?

Mildly_Miffed

dealwatchers said:

My frustration is less about chasing money and more about the principle and record

Save your blood pressure.

Your wife agreed, in claiming from her insurance, to let them decide liability.

dealwatchers

user1977 said:

How much time and money do you wish to spend pursuing this principle?

To be honest, I feel like I’ve come to the end of the road. I’ve pushed as hard as I can with Admiral Law, but they’ve now said they won’t take it further and that I’d need to appoint my own legal representation if I want to continue.

I don’t want to spend more money, and while I could take it to small claims court or financial ombudsman, I’m aware that the outcome may still be 50/50. What I’m really looking for is a fair conclusion that recognises my wife was not at fault. But I understand the reality of how these cases are often approached.

Some people here (and Admiral Law themselves) have said my wife could have reversed. I don’t dispute that. But the key point is that she had already given way to the HGV. If the driver knew he didn’t have enough space to turn, he could have simply signalled for her to continue past or asked her to reverse. That didn’t happen.

She’s not an HGV driver — she wouldn't reasonably know how much turning space he required. The fact that he chose to proceed suggests that, in his professional judgement, he believed he had enough space. If he got that wrong, the responsibility lies with him — not with my wife for not predicting his misjudgement.

dealwatchers

Mildly_Miffed said:

dealwatchers said:

My frustration is less about chasing money and more about the principle and record

Save your blood pressure.

Your wife agreed, in claiming from her insurance, to let them decide liability.

Thanks and agree on the BP point. Not sure about the latter, as the person who pays for the family insurance, I expect my insurance company to do better to defend my case. They closed the case twice prematurely and compensated me twice because of their failures. So I don't let them "decide liability" because they have been the liability in the case. Plus, I won't be letting them off the hook so lightly as a third complaint will be filed in the near future.

MyRealNameToo

dealwatchers said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

dealwatchers said:

My frustration is less about chasing money and more about the principle and record

Save your blood pressure.

Your wife agreed, in claiming from her insurance, to let them decide liability.

Thanks and agree on the BP point. Not sure about the latter, as the person who pays for the family insurance, I expect my insurance company to do better to defend my case. They closed the case twice prematurely and compensated me twice because of their failures. So I don't let them "decide liability" because they have been the liability in the case. Plus, I won't be letting them off the hook so lightly as a third complaint will be filed in the near future.

Legally you do, your policy book states in the general terms that they have the right to manage the claim and defend/settle as they see fit. Outside of the policybook insurance law if fairly clear that you subjugate your rights to your insurers by making a claim. Similarly the Road Traffic Act forces insurers to settle claims in certain circumstances. 

The whole motor insurance being mandatory would all be a bit pointless if it could be kiboshed by disgruntled policyholders not allowing their insurers to settle third party claims. 

Mildly_Miffed

dealwatchers said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Your wife agreed, in claiming from her insurance, to let them decide liability.

Thanks and agree on the BP point. Not sure about the latter, as the person who pays for the family insurance, I expect my insurance company to do better to defend my case. They closed the case twice prematurely and compensated me twice because of their failures. So I don't let them "decide liability" because they have been the liability in the case. Plus, I won't be letting them off the hook so lightly as a third complaint will be filed in the near future.

You need to read your policy documentation, because it is quite explicit that you are absolutely doing exactly that.

They could not manage claims at all otherwise, given the "outraged on principle" brigade insisting they absolutely were NOT at fault for reversing into that perfectly stationary lamp post...

The point with this claim is quite simply that there is plenty of scope to see how a reasonable driver could have done plenty to avoid the situation, yet did not, leading to an element of culpability resting on them. Without dashcam or similar evidence to prove otherwise, liability is split.

born_again

dealwatchers said:

She’s not an HGV driver — she wouldn't reasonably know how much turning space he required. The fact that he chose to proceed suggests that, in his professional judgement, he believed he had enough space. If he got that wrong, the responsibility lies with him — not with my wife for not predicting his misjudgement.

Rule 221

Large vehicles. These may need extra road space to turn or to deal with a hazard that you are not able to see. If you are following a large vehicle, such as a bus or articulated lorry, be aware that the driver may not be able to see you in the mirrors. Be prepared to stop and wait if it needs room or time to turn.

dealwatchers

Mildly_Miffed said:

dealwatchers said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Your wife agreed, in claiming from her insurance, to let them decide liability.

Thanks and agree on the BP point. Not sure about the latter, as the person who pays for the family insurance, I expect my insurance company to do better to defend my case. They closed the case twice prematurely and compensated me twice because of their failures. So I don't let them "decide liability" because they have been the liability in the case. Plus, I won't be letting them off the hook so lightly as a third complaint will be filed in the near future.

You need to read your policy documentation, because it is quite explicit that you are absolutely doing exactly that.

They could not manage claims at all otherwise, given the "outraged on principle" brigade insisting they absolutely were NOT at fault for reversing into that perfectly stationary lamp post...

The point with this claim is quite simply that there is plenty of scope to see how a reasonable driver could have done plenty to avoid the situation, yet did not, leading to an element of culpability resting on them. Without dashcam or similar evidence to prove otherwise, liability is split.

Thanks for the clarification as this is most helpful. 

Would a witness be helpful in this situation? As there was one who did see it all and came running over.

dealwatchers

born_again said:

dealwatchers said:

She’s not an HGV driver — she wouldn't reasonably know how much turning space he required. The fact that he chose to proceed suggests that, in his professional judgement, he believed he had enough space. If he got that wrong, the responsibility lies with him — not with my wife for not predicting his misjudgement.

Rule 221

Large vehicles. These may need extra road space to turn or to deal with a hazard that you are not able to see. If you are following a large vehicle, such as a bus or articulated lorry, be aware that the driver may not be able to see you in the mirrors. Be prepared to stop and wait if it needs room or time to turn.

Unsure if this equally applies as our vehicle was not following. It was given way opposite to us. I get the point could tried to be applied. 

Mildly_Miffed

dealwatchers said:

born_again said:

dealwatchers said:

She’s not an HGV driver — she wouldn't reasonably know how much turning space he required. The fact that he chose to proceed suggests that, in his professional judgement, he believed he had enough space. If he got that wrong, the responsibility lies with him — not with my wife for not predicting his misjudgement.

Rule 221

Large vehicles. These may need extra road space to turn or to deal with a hazard that you are not able to see. If you are following a large vehicle, such as a bus or articulated lorry, be aware that the driver may not be able to see you in the mirrors. Be prepared to stop and wait if it needs room or time to turn.

Unsure if this equally applies as our vehicle was not following. It was given way opposite to us. I get the point could tried to be applied. 

"If you are following" is just one specific example in that wider rule. Of course it applies.

paul_c123

I think its 50/50 from what the OP has described so far. OP hasn't included photos, or a diagram, or a map of the scene. It sounds like this is what happened:

1) The HGV driver made the normal checks then pulled out of a side road
2) During the turn, ie slightly after the HGV had looked and committed to the move, OP's wife also pulled out but then stopped, VERY close to the HGV
3) The swing of the HGV's tail as it completed the turn contacted the OP's wife's car.

HGVs have blind spots, they have tailswing, they cut the corner much more than a car, they are wider and they often need to take to both carriageways in certain situations, for example entering or exiting side roads (especially if they are narrow).

Sure, the driver can/should have looked but even if he did, because of the timing, he wouldn't have seen the OP's wife's car. Ultimately, he hit the other car, but the other car put itself into a position where it was inevitable and unsighted from the HGV driver. 50/50.

I believe Admiral Law have made errors in the claims process, but the allocation of blame isn't one of them. 

By all means continue pursuing it. What happens if your own legal team also arrive at the conclusion it was 50/50? Or it goes to court and its decided its 50/50? Or 100% your wife's fault? etc

It is a gamble and the odds aren't that good.