Insurance procedure after car collision with a child UPDATE

[Mandat]

Some of you might remember my thread from January 2015, following a collision that I had with a child running out in front of my car. The original thread is here.

I thought that it would be of interest to provide an update on the outcome.

A few months after the collision, the child’s parents made a claim against me for personal injury to the child, and the estimated claim value was to be over £25,000. My insurance company investigated the claim and they came out to interview me, and also visited the collision site.

CCTV footage of the collision was also available, and with this my insurance company denied liability and challenged the claim. At the time, I was advised that the claim was likely to end up in court.

My insurer has been updating me every 6 months but no significant progress or news had been made over the past 18 months, as understandably these sorts of claims can take years to be resolved.

However, I received a phone call today from my insurer advising me that on the basis of the video footage, the claim has been withdrawn, and that they were now closing their file in this matter.

I’m somewhat relieved that this has been finally concluded, although I had fully anticipated that because the child was injured, that they would still receive some sort of pay out, even though negligence could not be placed on my part.

[Mandat]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Did the OP make a claim on his own policy for his damage, and if so, are the OP's insurers going after them to recover their outlay?

There was no damage to my car and no claim was made by me.

I appreciate that potentially I could launch a claim against the child's parents to try and recover my losses but this is not something that I would contemplate, for numerous reasons.

[Mandat]

geeks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

geeks said:

Am glad all involved are ok.

An interesting point, LoonR1 was wrong

So was I.

But, to be fair, there was no mention of CCTV footage in the original thread. That's been key to the outcome. Also, the TP seem to have gone for a crazy amount of money. Had they gone for something more reasonable (£3-5K), I'm sure Loon & I would have been right.

Also, quite a few people were suggesting that the OP could claim for his damage from the child! That was shot down in flames by Loon & I and we were right.

Indeed, it wasn't a malicious thing but there was a line about them just paying out and not even considering a battle regardless of blame or whatever. I just thought it was interesting. Also nice to see that some investigation has gone on.

Based on the advice from Loon and others in the original thread, I was fully expecting the insurance to pay out, purely on the basis of a child being injured, irrespective of fault or negligence by either party.

I suspect that the size of the claim gave my insurer the motivation to challenge it, rather than paying out automatically. The evidence to support my defence was always there, but I wonder how hard the insurer would have investigated this if the claim was for a much lower amount.

[Mandat]

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:

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

[Mandat]

I think that Loon was generally right, and that my insurer would have paid out a smallish sum to settle the claim, however the claimants seem to have overplayed their hand and have ended up with nothing.

[Mandat]

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.