Insurance procedure after car collision with a child UPDATE
Discussion
Durzel said:
What I don't understand, and I realise it's a simplistic view, but why is it that one can make such a claim and withdraw it later without penalty?
The parents who made the claim either had an injured child, or they did not. Clearly as the evidence proved in this instance their fraudulent claim was without merit, but they were free to make it and there was no consequences for doing so.
Or is the suggestion that the child was and remains injured, but that the footage points at them being at fault? The cynic in me wonders whether or not the parents saw an opportunity for a cash windfall and seized upon it.
The claim letter that was submitted by the child's solicitors was written in a matter of fact way (I suppose they all are), citing my negligence for the collision because:The parents who made the claim either had an injured child, or they did not. Clearly as the evidence proved in this instance their fraudulent claim was without merit, but they were free to make it and there was no consequences for doing so.
Or is the suggestion that the child was and remains injured, but that the footage points at them being at fault? The cynic in me wonders whether or not the parents saw an opportunity for a cash windfall and seized upon it.
1. The child had stopped and looked both ways to make sure that the road was clear.
2. Seeing that the road was clear in both directions, the child decided to cross.
3. I had failed to notice the child that was crossing the road.
4. I was exceeding the posted speed limit.
5. I had failed to apply the brakes at all, and in time.
None of these claims were true, and I was vindicated by the video evidence, however I hate to think how this would have panned out without the video.
There were witness statements that supported by position, but I don’t know whether the Solicitor had seen these or taken them into account, when filing the above claims against me.
Edited by Mandat on Thursday 25th August 11:47
1. The child had stopped and looked both ways to make sure that the road was clear.
The road was obviously not clear, you were on it.
2. Seeing that the road was clear in both directions, the child decided to cross.
From a dangerous location - the road was not clear
3. I had failed to notice the child that was crossing the road.
How could you from behind a car
4. I was exceeding the posted speed limit.
How can they prove it
5. I had failed to apply the brakes at all, and in time.
If you didn't brake the child would have been under the wheels and out the back.
OP you should claim your losses from the parents and give the money to charity if it doesn't sit well with you.
PAULJ5555 said:
1. The child had stopped and looked both ways to make sure that the road was clear.
The road was obviously not clear, you were on it.
2. Seeing that the road was clear in both directions, the child decided to cross.
From a dangerous location - the road was not clear
3. I had failed to notice the child that was crossing the road.
How could you the child was behind a car
4. I was exceeding the posted speed limit.
How can they prove it
5. I had failed to apply the brakes at all, and in time.
If you didn't brake the child would have been under the wheels and out the back.
OP you should claim your losses from the parents and give the money to charity if it doesn't sit well with you.
The road was obviously not clear, you were on it.
2. Seeing that the road was clear in both directions, the child decided to cross.
From a dangerous location - the road was not clear
3. I had failed to notice the child that was crossing the road.
How could you the child was behind a car
4. I was exceeding the posted speed limit.
How can they prove it
5. I had failed to apply the brakes at all, and in time.
If you didn't brake the child would have been under the wheels and out the back.
OP you should claim your losses from the parents and give the money to charity if it doesn't sit well with you.
Good outcome OP.
Word of warning though:
The child's parents may simply take the claim to another solicitor who is happy to pursue it. Just because the last one didn't fancy it, doesn't mean the next one won't. They have until the child's 21st birthday to issue court proceedings against you so it may still happen.
If it does, don't give in.....this is clearly a claim to defend given the kid ran out in front of you. The value of the claim will make no difference if the insurers think it's one to defend.
Word of warning though:
The child's parents may simply take the claim to another solicitor who is happy to pursue it. Just because the last one didn't fancy it, doesn't mean the next one won't. They have until the child's 21st birthday to issue court proceedings against you so it may still happen.
If it does, don't give in.....this is clearly a claim to defend given the kid ran out in front of you. The value of the claim will make no difference if the insurers think it's one to defend.
Nezquick said:
Good outcome OP.
Word of warning though:
The child's parents may simply take the claim to another solicitor who is happy to pursue it. Just because the last one didn't fancy it, doesn't mean the next one won't. They have until the child's 21st birthday to issue court proceedings against you so it may still happen.
If it does, don't give in.....this is clearly a claim to defend given the kid ran out in front of you. The value of the claim will make no difference if the insurers think it's one to defend.
Yes, the thought did occur to me that another claim (for a smaller amount) could still be made for years to come. However, they would still need to show negligence on my part, and I presume that this would be more difficult for them to prove with the evidence that exists in the file.Word of warning though:
The child's parents may simply take the claim to another solicitor who is happy to pursue it. Just because the last one didn't fancy it, doesn't mean the next one won't. They have until the child's 21st birthday to issue court proceedings against you so it may still happen.
If it does, don't give in.....this is clearly a claim to defend given the kid ran out in front of you. The value of the claim will make no difference if the insurers think it's one to defend.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nezquick said:
The value of the claim will make no difference if the insurers think it's one to defend.
That's just not true. They make commercial decisions, like all businesses. A £1500 claim my not be worth fighting, but £15K might be. martinbiz said:
What drivel, if the insures have a £5k potential claim and its going to cost them 10k to defend it, even if it's rock solid they are unlikely to bother, it's cheaper and easier to say here's your 5 grand now go away. Unfortunately that's why Ambulance chasing lawyers exist. Now if it's a 50k claim which might cost 10 to defend then it's a different matter, pure economics
Ah you guys do like to crop up on these insurance threads even though you have absolutely no idea what you're on about. I used to have the same arguments with Loon until he was banned.I defend such claims for my job. Value DOES NOT MATTER. If a claim is worth defending, an insurer will defend it. There is always risk in every claim but insurers defend those with merit (like ones with good CCTV).
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's just not true. They make commercial decisions, like all businesses. A £1500 claim my not be worth fighting, but £15K might be.
Yes it is Twig. You seem to be fixated on value when it comes to insurance claims. In reality it means very little, at least to the clients I defend claims for. 
Nezquick said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's just not true. They make commercial decisions, like all businesses. A £1500 claim my not be worth fighting, but £15K might be.
Yes it is Twig. You seem to be fixated on value when it comes to insurance claims. In reality it means very little, at least to the clients I defend claims for. Get real.
We do it all the time.
There is a known cost for sending a claim to the FCA, as with all claims there is a point where the value of defending it is outweighed by the cost of the claim. We always start out with good intentions that this is the one to defend and sometimes we see it through, sometimes we don't.
We have paid a 6 figure claim in the US as going to court to fight it would cost at least the same in fees and we could lose.
There is a known cost for sending a claim to the FCA, as with all claims there is a point where the value of defending it is outweighed by the cost of the claim. We always start out with good intentions that this is the one to defend and sometimes we see it through, sometimes we don't.
We have paid a 6 figure claim in the US as going to court to fight it would cost at least the same in fees and we could lose.
del mar said:
We do it all the time.
There is a known cost for sending a claim to the FCA, as with all claims there is a point where the value of defending it is outweighed by the cost of the claim. We always start out with good intentions that this is the one to defend and sometimes we see it through, sometimes we don't.
We have paid a 6 figure claim in the US as going to court to fight it would cost at least the same in fees and we could lose.
Yes, I think they call it "common sense".There is a known cost for sending a claim to the FCA, as with all claims there is a point where the value of defending it is outweighed by the cost of the claim. We always start out with good intentions that this is the one to defend and sometimes we see it through, sometimes we don't.
We have paid a 6 figure claim in the US as going to court to fight it would cost at least the same in fees and we could lose.
Nezquick said:
Good outcome OP.
Word of warning though:
The child's parents may simply take the claim to another solicitor who is happy to pursue it. Just because the last one didn't fancy it, doesn't mean the next one won't. They have until the child's 21st birthday to issue court proceedings against you so it may still happen.
If it does, don't give in.....this is clearly a claim to defend given the kid ran out in front of you. The value of the claim will make no difference if the insurers think it's one to defend.
The parents need taking to court for neglecting their child!Word of warning though:
The child's parents may simply take the claim to another solicitor who is happy to pursue it. Just because the last one didn't fancy it, doesn't mean the next one won't. They have until the child's 21st birthday to issue court proceedings against you so it may still happen.
If it does, don't give in.....this is clearly a claim to defend given the kid ran out in front of you. The value of the claim will make no difference if the insurers think it's one to defend.
Nowadays too often parents are lacking in the safety of their child and rather than face up to the problem they go looking to blame the driver as a scapegoat for their own failings!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff