Car Accident - Insurance Dispute

I am not an expert, but I believe that there are people out there capable of calculating his speed based on how much your car was spun round. I would have thought that if he was travelling at say 60mph and you couldn't have seen him then it would be his fault. I guess that is key to your case - where do you find such a person?

Tony

I think the truth of the matter is, it's not worth the insurance company investigating and proving fault, it's cheaper just to pay out on the most likely suspect and pulling out of a side road is unfortunately one of the 'at fault' instances.

Doesn't matter much to them as they'll get the money back off you in the long run but I can understand you being annoyed as it's your no claims they're taking.

Hi there,

I am a former police officer who spent a few years attached to the Accident Enquiry Squad, then left to set up my own accident management company, which I was involved in for over 20 years.

When advising accident victims I always believe in being completely frank and realistic, so I hope you wont mind if I do that here.

As the person emerging from a cross roads, crossing the major road, there is a duty of care to give way to traffic on the major road. Unfortunately, the only person who can legally give evidence of speed is a police officer. Accident reconstruction experts do operate out there, but their charges are expensive and you have to weigh up the cost against the liklelihood of winning. Insurers will see this as black and white, in that your vehicle failed to give way and without evidence of speed from a police officer, liability will go against you. I will answer your points as you have asked them:-

1. I got hit almost at the back of my car so it means that i was on the road too. Sorry, whether it's the front or back of your car, the insurers will say your car shouldn't have been in the path of a vehicle with right of way.
2. The car that hit us must be travelling more than the speed limit of 30 if he managed to get there so fast, otherwise if he was near the van wouldnt have turned right and the man in the bicycle wouldnt have indicated to go. And also, if he was travelling at 30 he couldnt have spun us 180 degrees. As mentioned, only a police officer can give evidence of speed, so the allegation will be discounted.

3. There isnt even a skid mark indicating that he did try to avoid the accident from happening by breaking at least. Again, only police or reconstruction experts can give such evidence and for it to have any weight. Without this, the insurers will fall back on the rigght of way argument.
4. There shouldnt be any other car involve if we werent spun 180 degrees. The insurers will say the third car wouldn't have been involved, had you stayed where you were and that your pulling out was the cause of the incident.

Cross roads junction accidents are notoriously difficult to accept, especially the way some are constructed, requiring a driver to almost edge out to get a view. Unfortunately, accident law does not take account of this. Many cases such as this evoke sympathy from us because we have all been there and perhaps been more fortunate than you were.

In summary then, the prospects of a successful conslusion are remote, and my advice would be to let the insurers deal with it as best as they can accepting the outcome and moving on. I hope you get the best outcome, but in the same breath, I wouldn't wish to raise your expectations. On the basis of the circumstances, having handled thousands of such cases, I would be suprised if the insurers found in favour of the other driver.

Best Wishes

Steve

Thanks for the extremely informative and enlightening response Steve.

Happy to help Tony.

Anything to do with road accidents or crime (particularly car crime) and I'm a bit of a nerdy geek.

If I can help with anything related, you have my direct e mail on the profile, so don't hesitate to shout up.

If I do have one passion.... it's helping people to avoid injustice, having wirnessed so much of it!

Kind Regards

Steve

Crime Analyst & Accident Management

Steve got there before me. You've pulled into the path of an established vehicle, and I had this argument with a friend not so long ago who argued that someone else was at fault as they "must have been speeding" because she couldn't see them when she pulled out.

Incidentally, I had my first road accident last weekend. I went into the back of someone. There were various mitigating and unexpected factors, but the fact of the matter is that I went into the back of someone, hence I'm 100% at fault at the end of the day.

I'm now just hoping the other party don't try to claim for whiplash, which I'm not optimistic about due to a phone call I received from my insurers today....

Hi Chutzpah,

Sorry to hear about the accident, it's so easily done. With all the distractions there are for clear driving these days, we should all consider ourselves fortunate not to have been in similar circumstances.

A word of caution for you if that's ok?

The "Cash For Crash" or staged accident scams that have become more prevalent have given rise to claims being made for whiplash when previously, many would just grin and bear it. A minor twinge can be made to appear to be more dramatic than it actually is. This is made worse by the sad fact that there are medical practitioners who earn substantial fees from diagnosing an "injury" to be more serious than it actually is.

My advice is to get in early with your report to your insurers, providing as much detail as possible about the incident and the people present. You may hear that a phantom witness has appeared or that they are now reporting there were more occupants in their vehicle. Be aware of this possibility, though I hope your claim does not contain any of these complications.

The speed of the vehicles, and the make/model can be relevant. At low speeds it has been proven that a certain severity level of injury could not have been sustained. Many newer vehicles have specially designed anti whiplash head restraints that have been proven to minimise the effects and subsequent claim costs. (The more severe the injury, the greater the value of the claim in the norm).

Without knowing the ins and outs of the accident it is difficult to surmise.

Common tricks in the cash for crash fraudulent claims arena will include excessive braking (some even removing brake lights so you have no warning). Others include use of rental vehicles (a common trick). If you have any suspicions at all that the claim is in any way bogus, post again and I will try to advise.

If it is that you were genuinely at fault, without any such adverse elements, then I wish you well with the claim. All you can do in such cases is report the incident speedily and in as much detail as you can, submitting any written explanations in support of the events as you experienced them.

Many of the fraudulent cases involve multiple claimants, who are drivers one day and witnesses the next. The insurance industry works closely with fraud investigators to root out these persistent claimants and have databases of such offenders. The area of the country where the accident occurred may be relevant too, as there are known hotspots for this sort of claim.

Sadly, the fraudulent side of the cash for crash industry is costing the innocent motorist millions in increased premiums, and throwing suspicion over many genuine accidents. The income from such claims is feeding a large monster, which unfortunately also includes a number of insurers. When you hear that fees of £800 are being paid by injury lawyers and accident management companies for the referral of injured claimants, you can see why the practice is mushrooming. Insurers play their part, with many of them receiving such referral fees. This only serves to exacurbate the problem. On one hand the insurers generate headlines critical of cash for crash claim costs, then on the other hand they are among the recipients of the fees that contribute to those same spiralling costs.

As you can tell, it is a subject that incenses me. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am passionate about injustice. It seems to me, a major injustice that the innocent motorist is being penalised on insurance premiums, for costs incurred where insurers are receiving a share.

All that said, I wish you all the best with your claim. Shout up if you think I can be of help.

Kind Regards

Steve

Crime Analyst at Nice 1 Limited

Well, in a nutshell, we were approaching a roundabout, an old lady two cars in front managed to somehow stall on approach and came to a standstill unexpectedly, lady behind slammed on her brakes as did I. If there was an extra half a metre I would have stopped in time, but there wasn't and I managed to nudge the middle car into the front car (so lightly that there was no damage between those two cars).

The 'mitigating factor' I cited were roadworks on the next lane (it was a dual carriageway down to a single lane due to roadworks) that had left stone and dust all over the road... although I also appreciate that I should have factored that in. Still, since I've been completely accident and bump free since I passed my test seven years ago I'm trying not to beat myself up too much about it, although I've been extremely annoyed with myself ever since the accident.

All cars was driveable (in fact I drove it 150 miles home the next day), though the car I hit is being written off (although that's probably just as it's a G reg, the boot wouldn't open after the accident so I expect it's not viable for the insurance company to repair). Mine was just damage to my car's crumple zone, all the air con, engine, water bottle etc. were fine.

The only reason I mentioned whiplash is because at the scene everyone was fine, both other parties said "it's just one of those things" and that "at the end of the day it's only some cars" and we all exchanged details amicably and carried on on our way.

That was at the weekend, however today my insurer called to "just check some details of the accident" and asked me lots of questions along the lines of "was there any need to call an ambulance" and "did anyone complain of any injuries at the scene".

It's because of this I've got concerns about people putting in claims for injuries. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Insurers have changed their processes considerably to prepare themselves in advance or receiving a claim that might contain injury. The questions they asked seem like process questions in preparation.

To be certain, you could just ask your insurer if an injury claim has been intimated by anyone else involved in the RTA.

Thankfully, the circumstances seem innocent enough. It's was we would call a concertina effect collison. In such cases, your insurer, if doing their job properly, should ask the front driver if they felt one impact or two. Although you shunted the vehicle in front, unless you are already certain, it's worh checking if the middle car hit the front car first, and was then shunted again by your vehicle.

Why is this relevant? Well, if the middle car hit the front car first, your insurer will only be responsible for the damage to the rear of car 2, and your car. If the damage to car 1 was caused by car 2, car 2's insurer will have to pay. So, the recall of the driver at the front of the impacts felt will be evidential in reaching that decision.

The level of damage will affect the amount your insurer conceds liability for and pays for, which will determine the claim amaount set against your policy, which in turn, will determine your renewal price.

All really depends on how switched on and professional your insurer is.

From what you've described, I'd say the driver of car 2 is the most likely candidate to make a claim. If its a G reg and a write off, she's probably had the barrack room lawyer advice to claim for injury, get a higher payment and add it to the write off value to replace her vehicle with a better one. If, as you say, the impact was minimal, if you want to dig your heels in, you may have a case for minimising your insurer exposure.

I am always curious to discover on claims now... if driver 2 IS the possible injury, who is handling her case? Did her insurer refer her to that source and are they or any party receiving a referral fee for that introduction. Again relevant because the fee, if an injury claim is made, will form part of the costs apportioned to your insurance claim.

Kind Regards

Steve

Yes, they've already spoken to the first lady on Monday who has confirmed feeling just one bump. Luckily I have protected no claims bonus, and besides she didn't have any damage at all - her car was absolutely fine. At first she didn't even see the sense in leaving her details until we convinced her to.

The lady I hit has the same insurer as me, not sure if that's good news in the grand scheme of things. But funnily enough it is the fact of getting more money for a new car that has been playing on my mind - she said at the scene and later that evening when she called me as she hadn't written down my registration correctly that "she couldn't afford to be without her car". I think that's where the paranoia has come from.

The chap on the phone today did ask whether I wanted regular updates throughout the claim or just be notified when it is fully settled, I said "well as far as I can tell everything in this claim is relatively straightforward, is that the case?" and he replied yes, so maybe I am worrying other nothing.

One of the hotspots for staged accidents is Bolton. I was watching a programme about it a few months back and a roundabout near where I live was featured!! Basically, as they were approaching the roundabout with someone behind them they would slam on the brakes even though it was safe for them to proceed. The driver behind has no chance as they can see that it is clear and could not anticipate someone doing this.

I was always taught to keep the car moving where possible when driving (making progress) and that includes looking at the roundabout on approach to see if you can go without stopping. Drives me crazy when some people stop regardless.

Hi Steve,
I read the answer you gave about a car accident and you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on what happened to me?

It was raining and I was overtaking 3 parked cars up a slightly bended incline. when I started to overtake there was no oncoming car in sight. As I was passing the 3rd parked car, a car full of teenagers appeared driving at about 40 on a 30 down the hill. They saw me, panicked, and slammed on brakes in the wet conditions and drove into the front of the 3rd parked car, slightly hitting me in the front as well.

I called the police who said it looked like a driving error on their part but could not say for sure, but did take photos.
They are now claiming that I am liable because I pulled into their side of the road causing the collision.
The owner of the parked car who was not a witness and is friends with the other driver is also blaming me.
And of course all the teenagers in the oncoming car are backing up the driver's story as a witness.

I have now write a report to my insurers (incidentally we are all insured with the same company) and explain my side of the story.
Can you give me any advice on what to say and do?
Many thanks
Mariette

mariettemo said:

Hi Steve,
I read the answer you gave about a car accident and you seem very knowledgeable on the subject, and I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on what happened to me?

It was raining and I was overtaking 3 parked cars up a slightly bended incline. when I started to overtake there was no oncoming car in sight. As I was passing the 3rd parked car, a car full of teenagers appeared driving at about 40 on a 30 down the hill. They saw me, panicked, and slammed on brakes in the wet conditions and drove into the front of the 3rd parked car, slightly hitting me in the front as well.

I called the police who said it looked like a driving error on their part but could not say for sure, but did take photos.
They are now claiming that I am liable because I pulled into their side of the road causing the collision.
The owner of the parked car who was not a witness and is friends with the other driver is also blaming me.
And of course all the teenagers in the oncoming car are backing up the driver's story as a witness.

I have now write a report to my insurers (incidentally we are all insured with the same company) and explain my side of the story.
Can you give me any advice on what to say and do?
Many thanks
Mariette

Click to expand...

Hi Marie,

Sorry for the delay in replying, bit manic this week.

The problem with accidents like this, is what seems clear as crystal on the day, can be muddied as time passes.

I am assuming that the parked cars were on your side (nearside of the road)?

If that is the case, and nothing is coming in the opposite direction, once you are established in the overtaking position you have right of way. That said, it follows that we are all expected to proceed with caution. From what you have said it seems you complied with that.

Assuming the parked cars were on your side of the road, the distance they parked apart may be relevant. The third party insurer would ask if there was an opportunity for you to pull in and let them pass. If they had no parked vehicles on their side, the obligation shifts to you to pull in and give way if possible.

The photo's should help you here.

If the oncoming vehicle hit parked cars on your side of the road, it certainly suggests that they would have had to veer to the wrong side of the road
to collide with the parked vehicle and then you.

Unfortunately, evidence of speed cannot be introduced unless by a police officer. So unless they did a reconstruction at the scene, which it seems they did not, then its unlikely that evidence of speed could be used.

As far as the occupants of the car are concerned, in insurance terms they are non independent and their testimony would be treated as weak. If you can associate the owener of the parked car with the occupants of the offending vehicle, the same applies, he is no longer independent. In any event, did he actually witness the collision or merely the vehicles in situ after the event? Either way, his evidence should be "tested" by the insurers.

The key factors to include are :-

• • Location of parked vehicles, nearside or offside. If on their side, I'm afraid it's likely they will find in favour of the other party.
  • Distance of parked vehicles apart
  • From the point of starting to overtake, distance to where you first saw other party vehicle (relevant if a considerable distance or a bend in the road)
  • Your speed
  • Any avoiding action taken if possible?
  • Photos and description indicating area of damage to all cars (If their damage and parked cars on nearside - I'd say they'll favour their version).
  
  All really depends on the stomach your insurer has for the fight. If you speak to them over the phone, explaining what happened, you'll get a feel for this.
  
  It is your right to dispute their version, but in the end, your insurer may try to persude you to accept a 50/50 (if they treat it as two vehicles travelling in opposite directions with an undetermined right oif way).
  
  Hope that helps a little.
  
  Best of luck and kind regards
  
  Steve

I saw a similar kind of accident involving a friend of mine where he was hit by a motorbike coming over a blind rise in the road, he pulled out in front (obviously unable to see anything) and the bike went into the side of him.

He was told there was nothing he could do, he was liable as the other vehicle was already on the road. His pregnant girlfriend was in the car at the time and I know myself he isn't a reckless driver but there you are.

Hi everyone, sorry to bring this thread up again, It just looked like exactly the right place to ask.

Let me set the scene:
It was a rainy evening about 6pm and I was exiting a dual carriage way on a long 3 lane slip road. The car in front of me on the main road had missed the turning, braked very hard and swerved across right into my path. They locked up and skidded across the hatched chevron triangle leaving skid marks. I did a full ABS stop but went straight into the back of their car.

At the time the 3rd party driver apologised saying it was completely their fault and it was a stupid thing to do but days later I found they were now disputing liability so I guess they said i just drove into the back of them.

My insurers then asked for a full description and pictures which I took, gave road dimensions etc and asked if there was any CCTV at the scene. Now as I commute past the accident point everyday I looked when I next passed the point and saw their was a camera - I told my insurers who then asked the highways agency who told them that CCTV was only kept for 4 days! Not good when I didn't even know there was going to be a dispute until after that deadline.

Anyway, now its their word against mine over what happened and ultimately I hit them from behind.

What are your thoughts and advise on this? Thanks

crazysniper said:

Hi All,

I recently had a car accident (about three days ago) and insurance verdict is it is my fault. But i genuinely believe that this is sort of a 50/50 scenario.

Heres what happened..

I was on a crossroad waiting to cross the road. There was a van opposite me that just turned right. A man in a bicycle waiting to cross my side of the road, had given way and told me to go. I had a looked, from both sides and i couldnt see any car so i went, then boom! Accident happend. There were three cars involve with this accident when we got spun 180 degrees because of the impact.

Just as i mentioned on the first line, my insurance told me it was my fault. My Insurance's argument is, the guy who hit me is already on the road therefore he has the right of way etc.

And here is my argument. ( please let me know if these are valid points to argue )

1. I got hit almost at the back of my car so it means that i was on the road too.

2. The car that hit us must be travelling more than the speed limit of 30 if he managed to get there so fast, otherwise if he was near the van wouldnt have turned right and the man in the bicycle wouldnt have indicated to go. And also, if he was travelling at 30 he couldnt have spun us 180 degrees.

3. There isnt even a skid mark indicating that he did try to avoid the accident from happening by breaking at least.

4. There shouldnt be any other car involve if we werent spun 180 degrees.

Do you think i have a case if i fight this?? Your input is much appreciated.

Thanks very much in advance.

Click to expand...

I am in a very similar situation at the moment and its so frustrating the insurance company are just willing to say I am to blame

Crime Analyst said:

Happy to help Tony.

Anything to do with road accidents or crime (particularly car crime) and I'm a bit of a nerdy geek.

If I can help with anything related, you have my direct e mail on the profile, so don't hesitate to shout up.

If I do have one passion.... it's helping people to avoid injustice, having wirnessed so much of it!

Kind Regards

Steve

Crime Analyst & Accident Management

Click to expand...

Hi
Back in January this year I bought a car in a private sale through AutoTrader,before making the payment I did the text HPI check and all came clean so paid 12500£ in cash but when getting it taxed I realized the V5 was forged as it had no bar-code(to get it taxed),Basically it was a cloned car(VIN number/ Reg number changed) I contacted Police immediately and they took the car away. Now I am told that the guy is caught and been imprisoned for 14 months but wont give me any of his details due to data protection so I dont know who to take to court when I dont have his details.......At the time of purchase I did get a sale receipt and his driving licence copy but it was fake too. Any advice how to get my money back would help...thanks

I saw a similar kind of accident involving a friend of mine where he was hit by a motorbike coming over a blind rise in the road, he pulled out in front (obviously unable to see anything) and the bike went into the side of him.

He was told there was nothing he could do, he was liable as the other vehicle was already on the road. His pregnant girlfriend was in the car at the time and I know myself he isn't a reckless driver but there you are.