Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: a question of priorities and where do i stand

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default a question of priorities and where do i stand

    i was travelling along a B-road i approached the T-junction with another B-road, my left indicator going, i looked right and saw a car with left hand indicator going so waited until he turned off, i looked left there was a car in the service road that ran parallel with the with my B-road and a queue of traffic in the far lane moving left to right preventing cars from turning right safely i checked right again on seeing no traffic coming from my right i proceeded to perform my left turn and was out on the road when then car in the service lane shot out performing a right turn i performed an emergency stop but his rear offside wheel dragged the last 2/3 across the front of my car scuffing the numberplate, bumper and broke just the lense of my driver side head light, he appologised at the scene but now as neither side has witnesses he says he was out on the road first and im to blame, yet a car sat at my junction was still unable to perform his right turn safely and was still sat there, my insurers on the basis of the 2 statements only and despite my objections have said it's 50/50, his insurers wont accept that and are pushing for 100% my fault, what do i do as my insurers just seem to want to make life easy for themselves and cant even be bothered to question the points in his statement that contradict each other, even after i pointed some of them out myself

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    With no witnesses to the contrary, you have to see things from the perspective of your insurers. They will obviously anticipate you giving details of the accident in the best possible way that will favour yourself; and take the same view regarding the third party's claims. If they cannot deduce for themselves any other course, a 50/50 blame becomes the norm. Bear in mind that your insurer's employees have to spend time deliberating the situation, and time is money (cruel as that may seem), so they will not cogitate once they feel that they have reached the limits of any logical decision.
    If the other insurer/third party is trying to get 100% blame against you, then do not aggravate your own insurer by pursuing claims about a situation that you cannot prove.
    Tell them that, although you consider the third party to be at fault, you understand the non-witness situation, and accept the 50/50.
    Turning reasonable conclusions to your advantage is the best way to keep your insurers pressing for your share of the blame to be a little as possible.
    Best wishes for a satisfactory outcome.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,379

    Default

    If you have legal cover on your insurance activate it, give them the picture as you see it and see if it is worth going to court to get a judgment on the apportionment of blame. A good diagram of the junction would be a big help to them and details of damage to both vehicles. If no legal cover, marshal your facts and approach a solicitor for an opinion, you should get half an hour free consultation. The suggestion of going to court may get the other party to be more realistic, otherwise off to court you go. You may get some idea from these cases used by the insurance industry to apportion blame; you find other useful information on this website. http://www.howtohandleacaraccident.c...n-Motor-Claims

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    With no witnesses, wagolynn, is it worth that hassle? No amount of making diagrams will change a court's differences regarding who is to be believed, and one verbal slip can shatter one's case. Diagrams would not show distances between vehicles at the time the accident occurred, and marks on vehicles are not always reliable, as turning moments caused by the collision can produce damage that isn't consistent with actual cause.
    For myself, I prefer to see an innocent driver vindicated, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    With no witnesses, wagolynn, is it worth that hassle? No amount of making diagrams will change a court's differences regarding who is to be believed, and one verbal slip can shatter one's case. Diagrams would not show distances between vehicles at the time the accident occurred, and marks on vehicles are not always reliable, as turning moments caused by the collision can produce damage that isn't consistent with actual cause.
    For myself, I prefer to see an innocent driver vindicated, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.
    The position of damage on each vehicle could/should sort out who was doing what. Turning right, if I have understood the description was a no no as the road was not clear.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wagolynn View Post
    The position of damage on each vehicle could/should sort out who was doing what. Turning right, if I have understood the description was a no no as the road was not clear.
    Not true, wagolynn. Following the recent M5 pile-up, Jeremy Vine's phone-in on Radio2 carried a discussion about the crash. One driver said he was once in a M-way crash, and luckily was not hurt. Talking to other drivers at the scene, he said he was in a particular lane (cannot remember which), but the driver with whom he collided corrected him, saying he was in the adjacent lane. The first driver went on to say that, had he been giving evidence about the crash, from his own perspective he would have given wrong evidence; even if it was not intended. 'Should sort out' would not suffice in law. Stated beliefs have to be beyond reasonable doubt to be accepted as factual.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default

    so if i was to bite the bullet and go with my insurers decision of 50/50 sort the damage out myself as i understand from what ive been informed i would lose half my no claims but wouldnt pay the excess is that right or does my insurers pay for my repairs and his for his repairs in which case i could cancel my claim totally as the damage to my car is cosmetic and i could repair myself as this 50/50 thing confuses me as im not experienced with insurance claims having not done it before

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    8,456

    Default

    If the third party claims against your insurance, 50/50 means your insurance pays 50% of the third party's costs. Therefore you will pay your excess, regardless of whether or not you pay for all your own repairs. And, if not protected, some of your NCB will go as well.

    One thing I am not sure of, and which you need to find out, is what your insurance pays out to the third party compared to your excess.
    For example, if the third party's claims totalled 100 and your excess was 250, I don't think your insurers are allowed to profit in this manner.
    Unless they can add their own administration costs to the total.
    Once insurers are involved, if the third party's claim amounts to less than your excess, I don't know if you can elect to pay those costs yourself at that stage.
    It would be useful generally if someone in the insurance business could post some clarity on the forum.

    For the benefit of all, although it is necessary to inform our insurers in the event of a collision, however minor, it would be useful to know if formal pursuance by one's own insurers in dealing with a claim can be held in limbo until the third party's costs are known, and then choose whether to decide to pay for them personally.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Middlesex
    Posts
    8,509

    Default

    If you reimburse your insurer after a claim against you, they will usually restore your full NCB, but I advise to check with your insurer about this as not all do it. Obviously this is a decision that can only be made after finding out how much they pay out.
    As to fault, I would think it would be down to where exactly the service road exit was in regard to the T-junction. If it iis directly opposite, then it counts as a crossroad, and you would have had priority turning left, which would put fault 100% on the other driver.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Not true, wagolynn. Following the recent M5 pile-up, Jeremy Vine's phone-in on Radio2 carried a discussion about the crash. One driver said he was once in a M-way crash, and luckily was not hurt. Talking to other drivers at the scene, he said he was in a particular lane (cannot remember which), but the driver with whom he collided corrected him, saying he was in the adjacent lane. The first driver went on to say that, had he been giving evidence about the crash, from his own perspective he would have given wrong evidence; even if it was not intended. 'Should sort out' would not suffice in law. Stated beliefs have to be beyond reasonable doubt to be accepted as factual.
    There was a very interesting program about the inaccuracies of witnesses on the TV a while back. What it boiled down to was the police have learned to listen to witnesses and pool all the statements to come out with a range of probabilities. The position of damage on a vehicle gives a very good clue about who hit whom and speed of impact.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •