We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Caught in the middle of a three car claim
shanklypuss
Posts: 8 Forumite
Hi - I'm hoping you wonderful people can help me figure out the facts in this...
I was driving in the outside lane of a busy dual carriage way (about 40 mph) when the traffic suddenly slowed and stopped. Fortunately, I was used to the stop-start nature of his road and stopped my car behind the traffic. Unfortunately, a large van/ vehicle didn't stop and hit me with enough force (about 40mph) from behind that my car was shunted forwards (with the handbrake on) into the car in front. We didn't stay in the outside lane for long as it was pretty dangerous, so the photos of the incident are minimal.
The driver behind has accepted liability for driving into me and at the time apologised to the car in front too, but weeks after the incident, the driver in front of me has claimed I hit him twice - once at my fault and once following the shunt.
This is a fabrication and all I can think is the driver behind me has refused to admit liability for the driver at the front's damage. My insurance company have said it is my word against his, therefore as I hit him from behind, even if only due to the shunt, I am liable for it as there were no witnesses that stopped who could state otherwise.
The van behind me and the car in front had minimal damage. My car has been written off - the insurance are awaiting to go ahead to scrap my car.
I am asking you whether it is worth me fighting this - small claims court or otherwise; and if so, if I should not authorise the scrappage in case the car is needed for evidence?
Many thanks in anticipation!
I was driving in the outside lane of a busy dual carriage way (about 40 mph) when the traffic suddenly slowed and stopped. Fortunately, I was used to the stop-start nature of his road and stopped my car behind the traffic. Unfortunately, a large van/ vehicle didn't stop and hit me with enough force (about 40mph) from behind that my car was shunted forwards (with the handbrake on) into the car in front. We didn't stay in the outside lane for long as it was pretty dangerous, so the photos of the incident are minimal.
The driver behind has accepted liability for driving into me and at the time apologised to the car in front too, but weeks after the incident, the driver in front of me has claimed I hit him twice - once at my fault and once following the shunt.
This is a fabrication and all I can think is the driver behind me has refused to admit liability for the driver at the front's damage. My insurance company have said it is my word against his, therefore as I hit him from behind, even if only due to the shunt, I am liable for it as there were no witnesses that stopped who could state otherwise.
The van behind me and the car in front had minimal damage. My car has been written off - the insurance are awaiting to go ahead to scrap my car.
I am asking you whether it is worth me fighting this - small claims court or otherwise; and if so, if I should not authorise the scrappage in case the car is needed for evidence?
Many thanks in anticipation!
0
Comments
-
In these cases the rear vehicle driver often tries to reduce their liability by claiming the car in front had already hit the one in front. Obviously it is in the middle drivers interest to show they had stopped and were pushed into the car in front. The only way the insurers can resolve the dispute is to go to the front driver and ask them the sequence of impacts.
As here if the front driver says the car behind hit them and was then hit and pushed back into them then the middle and rear drivers share blame. Then the insurer looks at the damage to the middle car to determine the degree of blame between each driver.0 -
-
I know a little about insurance from my old job and I think it is usually accepted that the driver in front claims from the driver behind as its very hard to prove that the middle car did/did not hit the car in front.
You could contest it but it would be your word against the car in front of you and the car behind.
its weird because it makes not difference to the front driver really as regardless of liability shared between the middle and rear cars, he will receive the same. They will usually go by photos but `I would hold off on scrapping the car just in case and get written consent from the insurers that the car isn't needed before agreeing to scrap.Just a single mum, working full time, bit of a nutcase, but mostly sensible, wanting to be Mortgage free by 2035 or less!0 -
What I think kimplus is alluding to is that when a dispute like this arises the two insurers behind reach an agreement for one of them to settle the claim from the innocent driver at the front whilst they sort out liability to keep cost to a minimum. Once liability is resolved the two insurers sort out the costs between them.
To answer the op question, photos are taken when the car is inspected by the insurer.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards