Angry at my insurance company
Discussion
Currently, I find myself quite irritated. A couple of years ago, I had a collision with a van while driving on a narrow road. As a result, my car's mirror was broken, and there was some body damage. Since the van didn't stop, I submitted a claim to my insurance company, providing them with a dashcam video as evidence.
Fortunately, my car was repaired, and everything seemed fine. However, I received a letter from my insurance company informing me that they were pursuing damages from the van driver's insurers. They requested my cooperation with their solicitors regarding the matter. I agreed, assuming it wouldn't amount to much.
Fast forward to last week when I found myself at the county courts. The solicitor's appointed advocate greeted me, and we had a discussion prior to the hearing, scheduled to commence in about half an hour. To my surprise, the advocate played a dashcam clip from the defendant's van but failed to present any footage from my car. When I inquired about it, he seemed unaware of its existence. Although he couldn't offer advice, he subtly hinted that we might not receive the full amount awarded. It took some time for me to grasp his suggestion that we should consider making an offer to settle out of court.
Feeling completely inexperienced in legal matters, I was suddenly expected to make a decision on what to do and how much to settle for. Ultimately, realizing that I wouldn't gain or lose anything either way, we agreed to settle for 50%. The judge later expressed satisfaction and stated that it was likely the outcome we would have reached regardless.
However, I couldn't help but feel furious. I was angry at my insurance company for not providing my video to the solicitors and at the solicitors themselves for neglecting to inform me about the likelihood of reaching an agreement and for not offering any guidance. I'm curious if others have found themselves in similar situations and if they share my frustration.
To add insult to injury despite my cooperation they loaded my renewal up so much that I had to reinsure with another company.
I tend to think in these situations (cars passing close to each other) the only way it will not be declared 50-50 is if you can prove you had stopped and as such he drove into you. You may well have felt he was in the wrong and sure, maybe he was more to blame but if you were moving the argument is you were moving towards the danger, too.
His footage has no doubt shown you both were moving?
I have noticed fewer and fewer wait behind a car blocking their path these days, they just pull out or carry on straight at you.
Unless you drive a truck or a Hummer. Then they wait.
Law of the jungle I guess. Sad and dangerous though.
His footage has no doubt shown you both were moving?
I have noticed fewer and fewer wait behind a car blocking their path these days, they just pull out or carry on straight at you.
Unless you drive a truck or a Hummer. Then they wait.
Law of the jungle I guess. Sad and dangerous though.
TBH. My main gripe was that I had no prior advice or guidance from the insurance solicitors and had to decide to go through with the hearing or make an offer to the defendant. Given that I would not lose or gain anything I took the easy way out.
I look forward to my traveling expenses (£12).
I look forward to my traveling expenses (£12).
colonel c said:
TBH. My main gripe was that I had no prior advice or guidance from the insurance solicitors and had to decide to go through with the hearing or make an offer to the defendant. Given that I would not lose or gain anything I took the easy way out.
I look forward to my traveling expenses (£12).
That's nasty. Sorry you had to go through. Agreed that normally your insurance company would inform you that it would expect to be 50:50I look forward to my traveling expenses (£12).
For your insurance co, they get someone else to pay 50% of the costs.
If it makes you feel any better OP the experience my parents had was bonkers in comparison.
About 15 years ago we were on holiday in Spain in my dads Landcruiser. Driving down a big wide straight road, no other traffic. My dad is video recording the scenery.
Coming the other way is a little white Peugeot butchers van. Suddenly the van swerves - maybe the driver fell asleep, maybe he was drunk) and smashes into the side of the Landcruiser. Police attend etc, insurance details exchanged.
Video was sent to my dads insurance.
My dads insurance settled in the Spanish drivers favour. Wtf!
This was all visible, absolutely clear as day on the video. There was no question whatsoever that this guy just veered into - you can see everything.
Dad’s
About 15 years ago we were on holiday in Spain in my dads Landcruiser. Driving down a big wide straight road, no other traffic. My dad is video recording the scenery.
Coming the other way is a little white Peugeot butchers van. Suddenly the van swerves - maybe the driver fell asleep, maybe he was drunk) and smashes into the side of the Landcruiser. Police attend etc, insurance details exchanged.
Video was sent to my dads insurance.
My dads insurance settled in the Spanish drivers favour. Wtf!
This was all visible, absolutely clear as day on the video. There was no question whatsoever that this guy just veered into - you can see everything.
Dad’s
Dog Star said:
If it makes you feel any better OP the experience my parents had was bonkers in comparison.
About 15 years ago we were on holiday in Spain in my dads Landcruiser. Driving down a big wide straight road, no other traffic. My dad is video recording the scenery.
Coming the other way is a little white Peugeot butchers van. Suddenly the van swerves - maybe the driver fell asleep, maybe he was drunk) and smashes into the side of the Landcruiser. Police attend etc, insurance details exchanged.
Video was sent to my dads insurance.
My dads insurance settled in the Spanish drivers favour. Wtf!
This was all visible, absolutely clear as day on the video. There was no question whatsoever that this guy just veered into - you can see everything.
Dad’s
Wait, your dad wasn’t driving while also filming the scenery? About 15 years ago we were on holiday in Spain in my dads Landcruiser. Driving down a big wide straight road, no other traffic. My dad is video recording the scenery.
Coming the other way is a little white Peugeot butchers van. Suddenly the van swerves - maybe the driver fell asleep, maybe he was drunk) and smashes into the side of the Landcruiser. Police attend etc, insurance details exchanged.
Video was sent to my dads insurance.
My dads insurance settled in the Spanish drivers favour. Wtf!
This was all visible, absolutely clear as day on the video. There was no question whatsoever that this guy just veered into - you can see everything.
Dad’s
colonel c said:
I was suddenly expected to make a decision on what to do and how much to settle for. Ultimately, realizing that I wouldn't gain or lose anything either way, we agreed to settle for 50%.
I don't understand why you were expected to make a decision on what to do when you were not the solicitors client.You were a witness and should have referred the solicitor to his client your insurance company to make any agreements on settlements and acceptance of liability.
kestral said:
colonel c said:
I was suddenly expected to make a decision on what to do and how much to settle for. Ultimately, realizing that I wouldn't gain or lose anything either way, we agreed to settle for 50%.
I don't understand why you were expected to make a decision on what to do when you were not the solicitors client.You were a witness and should have referred the solicitor to his client your insurance company to make any agreements on settlements and acceptance of liability.
The way insurance works is that your insurer agree to indemnify you against any damage to your vehicle or to anyone else’s vehicle that your vehicle causes.
In this case the third party would have taken the OP to court, not the insurer. The insurer would have provided a solicitor on the OPs behalf. The insurer cannot be sued because they weren’t ever going to be the negligent party.
In this case, one of the insurers was adamant they weren’t going to accept 50/50 - which a narrow lane collision always is, unless one vehicle is stationary and even then it’s hard to fight.
You have to look at the cost of settling against the cost of going to court, in the case of a wingmirror it shouldn’t have ever gone to court - the solicitors would have cost more.
See clause ‘your insurer can settle however they see fit’ yadda yadda.
In this case the third party would have taken the OP to court, not the insurer. The insurer would have provided a solicitor on the OPs behalf. The insurer cannot be sued because they weren’t ever going to be the negligent party.
In this case, one of the insurers was adamant they weren’t going to accept 50/50 - which a narrow lane collision always is, unless one vehicle is stationary and even then it’s hard to fight.
You have to look at the cost of settling against the cost of going to court, in the case of a wingmirror it shouldn’t have ever gone to court - the solicitors would have cost more.
See clause ‘your insurer can settle however they see fit’ yadda yadda.
nipsips said:
The way insurance works is that your insurer agree to indemnify you against any damage to your vehicle or to anyone else’s vehicle that your vehicle causes.
In this case the third party would have taken the OP to court, not the insurer. The insurer would have provided a solicitor on the OPs behalf. The insurer cannot be sued because they weren’t ever going to be the negligent party.
In this case, one of the insurers was adamant they weren’t going to accept 50/50 - which a narrow lane collision always is, unless one vehicle is stationary and even then it’s hard to fight.
You have to look at the cost of settling against the cost of going to court, in the case of a wingmirror it shouldn’t have ever gone to court - the solicitors would have cost more.
See clause ‘your insurer can settle however they see fit’ yadda yadda.
I think you might have this wrong.In this case the third party would have taken the OP to court, not the insurer. The insurer would have provided a solicitor on the OPs behalf. The insurer cannot be sued because they weren’t ever going to be the negligent party.
In this case, one of the insurers was adamant they weren’t going to accept 50/50 - which a narrow lane collision always is, unless one vehicle is stationary and even then it’s hard to fight.
You have to look at the cost of settling against the cost of going to court, in the case of a wingmirror it shouldn’t have ever gone to court - the solicitors would have cost more.
See clause ‘your insurer can settle however they see fit’ yadda yadda.
If you read the OP.
The OP's insurer paid the OP for damage to his car then sued the third parties insurance company to recover it's losses.
See the word defendant in the OP's post.
That's why it was the OP's insurance company that was the client of the solicitor not the OP.
OP was just a witness.
Also just to let you know the insurer can be sued directly.
kestral said:
I think you might have this wrong.
If you read the OP.
The OP's insurer paid the OP for damage to his car then sued the third parties insurance company to recover it's losses.
See the word defendant in the OP's post.
That's why it was the OP's insurance company that was the client of the solicitor not the OP.
OP was just a witness.
Also just to let you know the insurer can be sued directly.
Yes. To clarify. The case before the court was myself V the van driver. I was there as a witness. However because it was the claimant it was down to me to decide weather or not to make an offer to the defendant for me to accept a percentage of the claim to avoid going before the court. If you read the OP.
The OP's insurer paid the OP for damage to his car then sued the third parties insurance company to recover it's losses.
See the word defendant in the OP's post.
That's why it was the OP's insurance company that was the client of the solicitor not the OP.
OP was just a witness.
Also just to let you know the insurer can be sued directly.
The problem I faced wa that my insurance company's appointed advocate was allowed to offer any legal advice.
With the Judge now actually waiting for us there was no time to contact the insurance company's solicitors for advice. Hence my annoyance at being in a position that I was totally unprepared for.
colonel c said:
kestral said:
I think you might have this wrong.
If you read the OP.
The OP's insurer paid the OP for damage to his car then sued the third parties insurance company to recover it's losses.
See the word defendant in the OP's post.
That's why it was the OP's insurance company that was the client of the solicitor not the OP.
OP was just a witness.
Also just to let you know the insurer can be sued directly.
Yes. To clarify. The case before the court was myself V the van driver. I was there as a witness. However because it was the claimant it was down to me to decide weather or not to make an offer to the defendant for me to accept a percentage of the claim to avoid going before the court. If you read the OP.
The OP's insurer paid the OP for damage to his car then sued the third parties insurance company to recover it's losses.
See the word defendant in the OP's post.
That's why it was the OP's insurance company that was the client of the solicitor not the OP.
OP was just a witness.
Also just to let you know the insurer can be sued directly.
The problem I faced wa that my insurance company's appointed advocate was allowed to offer any legal advice.
With the Judge now actually waiting for us there was no time to contact the insurance company's solicitors for advice. Hence my annoyance at being in a position that I was totally unprepared for.
If so, seems like utter madness!
jondude said:
I tend to think in these situations (cars passing close to each other) the only way it will not be declared 50-50 is if you can prove you had stopped and as such he drove into you. You may well have felt he was in the wrong and sure, maybe he was more to blame but if you were moving the argument is you were moving towards the danger, too.
His footage has no doubt shown you both were moving?
I have noticed fewer and fewer wait behind a car blocking their path these days, they just pull out or carry on straight at you.
Unless you drive a truck or a Hummer. Then they wait.
Law of the jungle I guess. Sad and dangerous though.
Years ago (1997) before dash cams were a thing. I was driving a metro in the hills above Settle. North Yorks. The purpose of my drive was to get my baby daughter to stop crying, which usually was the result of a short drive out.His footage has no doubt shown you both were moving?
I have noticed fewer and fewer wait behind a car blocking their path these days, they just pull out or carry on straight at you.
Unless you drive a truck or a Hummer. Then they wait.
Law of the jungle I guess. Sad and dangerous though.
I saw in the distance a black car and pulled into a passing place. Said car turned out to be a 3 door cos worth in black. Which was doing an estimated 70 mph. It removed my drivers door mirror and disappeared into the distance.
Dash cam footage would have shown I was stationary.
KTMsm said:
If you work on the basis that everyone is stupid, negligent and lazy
Occasionally you'll be happy when you're approved wrong
Standard operating procedure by the insurers and solicitors in my experience
And purely light hearted for fun.Occasionally you'll be happy when you're approved wrong
Standard operating procedure by the insurers and solicitors in my experience
Was it...
The wrong choice of word - stupid?
Didn't care about the harm caused to pedants with the wrong choice of word - negligent?
Or couldn't be bothered to check what was written - lazy?
All purely in jest
skwdenyer said:
So your insurer could have agreed 50:50 with the other side at the outset? But decided to go for 100%? Then, on the day, they left it to you to decide to accept 50:50?
If so, seems like utter madness!
This happened to a work colleague 21 years ago. It seems this has not changed.If so, seems like utter madness!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff