Involved in RTA, insurance claiming 50:50 but not my fault!
Discussion
I've helped a friend with something similar. I wrote to the offending driver and copied to his insurance company, along the lines of:
Please note that I hold you responsible for damage caused to my vehicle on . . . .
I have an estimate for the cost of repair, of which I enclose a copy.
My out of pocket expenses . . . This is not the final cost as the damage to my vehicle has rendered it unusable and there are daily extra costs. (This was to done to encourage them to settle quickly. Fat chance.)
The circumstances were that . . .
In this case you should emphasise that it was the rear of your vehicle that was struck.
It took nearly three months to get all costs paid. However:
My friend's insurance still increased as he had had an accident. I was told, obviously later, that if my friend had discussed it with the insurance company they would have agreed to say it wasn't his fault so he could claim no accidents his fault on the next insurance. I have not idea if that is correct and if so it was a lot of effort for nothing.
Again a bit late but much of the response from the insurance company can be down to how you filled in the initial report of the accident. It is always best to check your report with someone who knows about insurance claims. You can be your own worst enemy.
In this case, if you make it clear that you will cause a lot of aggravation, and it will cost them to blame you, they might accept that the accident was not your fault.
Please note that I hold you responsible for damage caused to my vehicle on . . . .
I have an estimate for the cost of repair, of which I enclose a copy.
My out of pocket expenses . . . This is not the final cost as the damage to my vehicle has rendered it unusable and there are daily extra costs. (This was to done to encourage them to settle quickly. Fat chance.)
The circumstances were that . . .
In this case you should emphasise that it was the rear of your vehicle that was struck.
It took nearly three months to get all costs paid. However:
My friend's insurance still increased as he had had an accident. I was told, obviously later, that if my friend had discussed it with the insurance company they would have agreed to say it wasn't his fault so he could claim no accidents his fault on the next insurance. I have not idea if that is correct and if so it was a lot of effort for nothing.
Again a bit late but much of the response from the insurance company can be down to how you filled in the initial report of the accident. It is always best to check your report with someone who knows about insurance claims. You can be your own worst enemy.
In this case, if you make it clear that you will cause a lot of aggravation, and it will cost them to blame you, they might accept that the accident was not your fault.
Having spoken with the insurers yesterday they have asked for a written statement/my version of events. I have written this up including some simple diagrams of road positioning etc. They were also interested in the photos I had taken; I have sent these over for their investigations team to look into. From the images I’d say it’s very clear cut what happened.
SirSquidalot said:
Having spoken with the insurers yesterday they have asked for a written statement/my version of events. I have written this up including some simple diagrams of road positioning etc. They were also interested in the photos I had taken; I have sent these over for their investigations team to look into. From the images I’d say it’s very clear cut what happened.
Post the photos on here so we can see what we're dealing with.Hope you get it sorted OP, and good luck with the ongoing claim.
Have the insurer told you why they think 50% liability rest with you?
On the bright side, at least you have now learnt the dangers of being in a truck's blind spot, which if nothing else, should mean that you can avoid becoming involved with a similar collision in the future.
Have the insurer told you why they think 50% liability rest with you?
On the bright side, at least you have now learnt the dangers of being in a truck's blind spot, which if nothing else, should mean that you can avoid becoming involved with a similar collision in the future.
SirSquidalot said:
Here's a few images of the damage:
Let me know what you guys think, from looking at the front of the HGV i'd say its pretty clear.
It's clear that the truck hit the side of your car, which nobody's disputing - but it's not clear WHY - whether the truck pulled into a lane you were in, or you pulled into one he was in.Let me know what you guys think, from looking at the front of the HGV i'd say its pretty clear.
SirSquidalot said:
Having spoken with the insurers yesterday they have asked for a written statement/my version of events. I have written this up including some simple diagrams of road positioning etc. They were also interested in the photos I had taken; I have sent these over for their investigations team to look into. From the images I’d say it’s very clear cut what happened.
Good luck, but I would say even in court the evidence may be considered as being not conclusive enough, and you'd have spent a lot of time and energy on it for nothing. You'd need very conclusive evidence for it not to go 50/50 IMO.I went through something similar after a non fault accident, and I fought for a while but it becomes exhausting.
In the end I gave up and accepted 50/50, hurt when it came to renewal knowing that I was paying more on behalf of a lying git, but at least I could move on.
Sometimes there is no justice unfortunately.
TooMany2cvs said:
It's clear that the truck hit the side of your car, which nobody's disputing - but it's not clear WHY - whether the truck pulled into a lane you were in, or you pulled into one he was in.
Agreed.Isn't there any way to request the truck owner's dashcam video? If it's one operated by the company, you can make the request under FoI-type auspices through the DPA (it's called a "Subject Access Request").
They have no obligation to honour the request (as it's mainly linked to personal data), but the company's data controller must reply to you within a limited (30/40 day) time schedule.
I'm confused.
You said the lorry hit your rear. Your photos are of the offside. People often commonly state hit in the rear, simply because they think it means they can't be at fault. Without wishing to be confrontational, unless there's damage to the rear of your vehicle, which you did not photograph and the side damage somehow happened later, you already undermined your credibility in failing to get your story straight and providing a spurious version of events.
Secondly, it appears the initial impact is to the front door/b pillar area, and then drags back. Ie the direction of the scrapes is for to aft and not the other way round. That suggests you in the near side lane, were travelling faster than the lorry at the point of impact, thereby undertaking and that he was in your blind spot. You, being forward of his, may not have been before the impact (although view from cabs is often poor and this may not be true). Now obviously you have no evidence to support your lane, the nearside lane was generally travelling faster than the offside, and so are left to explain the undertaking in the nearside lane, as well as the erroneous nature of your prior allegations of a rear impact, that fail to tie up with the damage. Is it likely a vehicle seeing one to it's immediate nearside, just drives into it? Or is it more probable that a vehicle with a blind spot, in a hurry, changes lanes without glancing over the shoulder? Which would you believe if both versions were given to you?
It's all inference I'm afraid, but with no other proper evidence, on a trial where "balance of probablities" is all that's needed, your wildly erroneous version, vs a professional driver who has received many hours of additional training and a "higher qualification" of licence, do not ring true on the damage and allegations raised.
Not wishing to be unkind, and I am sure there is lots we have not been told or that I through misreading, have misunderstood, but you begin to see why 50/50 is not in itself unreasonable, when both drivers dispute, there is no evidence available to support either one, and the facts may be turned to suit either party.
Did the lorry have a cam? Many do these days. Have you asked? If he has and it doesn't support him, he won't volunteer it unless you specifically ask?
You said the lorry hit your rear. Your photos are of the offside. People often commonly state hit in the rear, simply because they think it means they can't be at fault. Without wishing to be confrontational, unless there's damage to the rear of your vehicle, which you did not photograph and the side damage somehow happened later, you already undermined your credibility in failing to get your story straight and providing a spurious version of events.
Secondly, it appears the initial impact is to the front door/b pillar area, and then drags back. Ie the direction of the scrapes is for to aft and not the other way round. That suggests you in the near side lane, were travelling faster than the lorry at the point of impact, thereby undertaking and that he was in your blind spot. You, being forward of his, may not have been before the impact (although view from cabs is often poor and this may not be true). Now obviously you have no evidence to support your lane, the nearside lane was generally travelling faster than the offside, and so are left to explain the undertaking in the nearside lane, as well as the erroneous nature of your prior allegations of a rear impact, that fail to tie up with the damage. Is it likely a vehicle seeing one to it's immediate nearside, just drives into it? Or is it more probable that a vehicle with a blind spot, in a hurry, changes lanes without glancing over the shoulder? Which would you believe if both versions were given to you?
It's all inference I'm afraid, but with no other proper evidence, on a trial where "balance of probablities" is all that's needed, your wildly erroneous version, vs a professional driver who has received many hours of additional training and a "higher qualification" of licence, do not ring true on the damage and allegations raised.
Not wishing to be unkind, and I am sure there is lots we have not been told or that I through misreading, have misunderstood, but you begin to see why 50/50 is not in itself unreasonable, when both drivers dispute, there is no evidence available to support either one, and the facts may be turned to suit either party.
Did the lorry have a cam? Many do these days. Have you asked? If he has and it doesn't support him, he won't volunteer it unless you specifically ask?
I'm with JuJiggidyJuuuk84 on this one. 50/50 is best case scenario. I don't know how the OP can think that the photos support his version of events. They could be construed to support the lorry driver's version of events in that the OP could have been moving into lane 2 and into the path of the lorry.
This may not be of any help re insurance but may help further avoidance, the situation the op describes is a *very* common situation for hgv drivers, very, very common indeed.
What happens is that hgv is travelling in L1, sees that traffic is joining mway so moves to L2 either to maintain his speed or to assist joining traffic.
Joining traffic then speed matches traffic in L2 (This is the bit that's extremely common). Hgv driver loses sight of car in cab blind spot for whatever reason and so moves over on him.
Hgv driver is correct to admit liability though there is the instruction to never admit liability, however it was he who moved from L2 to L1 and it's not the car drivers fault that hgvs have blind spots.
Op will dispute this version of events, (after all it's always the lorry driver's fault) but then he's new to driving and no m'way instruction is given. Op will still feel he is blameless but op will ensure (hopefully) that he avoids hgv blind spots in future, even when joining m'ways.
Insurance company perhaps don't want to pay fully for someone who drove in a blind spot but this may be unfair and could be contested imo.
Ops version of events is accurate imo, from an inexperienced drivers perspective.
What happens is that hgv is travelling in L1, sees that traffic is joining mway so moves to L2 either to maintain his speed or to assist joining traffic.
Joining traffic then speed matches traffic in L2 (This is the bit that's extremely common). Hgv driver loses sight of car in cab blind spot for whatever reason and so moves over on him.
Hgv driver is correct to admit liability though there is the instruction to never admit liability, however it was he who moved from L2 to L1 and it's not the car drivers fault that hgvs have blind spots.
Op will dispute this version of events, (after all it's always the lorry driver's fault) but then he's new to driving and no m'way instruction is given. Op will still feel he is blameless but op will ensure (hopefully) that he avoids hgv blind spots in future, even when joining m'ways.
Insurance company perhaps don't want to pay fully for someone who drove in a blind spot but this may be unfair and could be contested imo.
Ops version of events is accurate imo, from an inexperienced drivers perspective.
heebeegeetee said:
This may not be of any help re insurance but may help further avoidance, the situation the op describes is a *very* common situation for hgv drivers, very, very common indeed.
What happens is that hgv is travelling in L1, sees that traffic is joining mway so moves to L2 either to maintain his speed or to assist joining traffic.
Joining traffic then speed matches traffic in L2 (This is the bit that's extremely common). Hgv driver loses sight of car in cab blind spot for whatever reason and so moves over on him.
So both manouvred into a position of conflict with another road user. One was changing lane on the motorway, the other was joining the motorway.What happens is that hgv is travelling in L1, sees that traffic is joining mway so moves to L2 either to maintain his speed or to assist joining traffic.
Joining traffic then speed matches traffic in L2 (This is the bit that's extremely common). Hgv driver loses sight of car in cab blind spot for whatever reason and so moves over on him.
50/50. Job jobbed.
TooMany2cvs said:
So both manouvred into a position of conflict with another road user. One was changing lane on the motorway, the other was joining the motorway.
50/50. Job jobbed.
Maybe, but at what point is it determined a vehicle has joined. 50/50. Job jobbed.
Personally I think in fact both vehicles are travelling side by side on an mway and both are established in their lanes. Then one of them changes lanes.
Just clear up, my explanation may not have been the best. I had joined the m6 at 21a and the Lorry had hit me on the Thelwall viaduct. So had been on the motorway for a few minutes, traffic was heavy so I was continuing in lane 1, Lorry was in lane 2 at a higher speed than the car in front of him and was joining into lane 1 as we where moving a few mph faster than the vehicle in the middle lane. I suppose ultimately it was the middle lane hogs fault...
39sl said:
OP - Do you have legal expense cover on your policy ?
If so, push back to your insurance company and say no way and let it takes its course.
If you do not, then accept 50/50 and move on
Legal cover on the policy will usually have a policy stipulating reasonable chances of success, the insurer will have made the decision already that the chances of success aren't strong which is why they are offering 50/50If so, push back to your insurance company and say no way and let it takes its course.
If you do not, then accept 50/50 and move on
Insurers aren't lazy they're just required to mitigate their losses, they're still down on this.
If there was any way they could 100% on the third party without an expensive court case then they would.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff