Insurer asking me to go to court as a witness

[Griffith4ever]

Anyone experienced this:

Nearly 2 years ago, someone contacted my insurer and claimed I hit their parked car (I did not). I sent loads of photos of my unmarked vehicle to the insurer etc etc.

Eventually, (now) it is going to court - the 3rd party is taking my insurer to court. My insurer (or their legal 3rd party, to be precise) asked me if I'd go to court as a witness. I said of course, as long as its local. Happy to help.

Now, the court date is set and its an hours drive away, not my local court (as an FYI I also had them postpone a court date in December as I was, and still am, on holiday). I contact the legal person. They said I don't have to go, but if I don't, they will instruct my insurer to settle without admitting liability.

I have asked
a) why does this all hinge on me being there in person? Why isn't a witness statement enough.
b) if they settle, does it get marked as a claim against me?
c) who's paying my travel costs if and when it gets rejected / they lose?

I will of course get a reply but wondered who else has experienced this. I'm getting a touch pissed off at rtying to be helpful, the goalposts being moved, and the insurers seeming eagerness to settle without my presence. They also basically stopped me insuring elsewhere whilst this is going on as, in their words, "you have an outstanding claim" - my reply was "what claim!?!" I've not done anything. All I have is an outstanding "accusation".

Enlighten me :-)

[OutInTheShed]

I witnessed something I wasn't involved in, and got asked to go to court as a witness about 2 years later and 200 miles away from my home or where the incident took place.
By which time I'd forgotten a lot and formed a low opinion of the insurance company who wanted me as a witness.
I declined to attend.
There was some possibility of doing it over zoom or something.

I might try to find the outcome of the court case, if it actually happened.

I think the system is a joke.
I've heard that many of these cases are settled on the court steps when one side turns up with witnesses and the other side turns up with none.
If you care about your record, turn up.

Not sure whether your 'contract' with your insurer obliges you to turn up?
Maybe see if zoom is a possibility?

[Durzel]

IANAL

a) The presumption is that you might be questioned in person about aspects of your Witness Statement. If it's as straightforward as you say then this doesn't sound like it would be particularly stressful.

b) It's a recorded claim either way, but you'd probably have to ask your insurer what this would mean in terms of whether it would be classified by them as an "at fault" claim, if they were to settle.

c) Costs like that can be awarded, so in the case that they lose the other party could end up paying your travel costs and any loss of earnings. These costs are capped. This assumes it's on the small claims track.

Your insurer is probably using your attendance as a threat of sorts, i.e. that they are committed to turning up at court and defending the claim. It could be the case that the other party settles on the eve of this date.

If it were me I'd go on general principal, on the basis I don't like people to get away with illegitimate claims. An hours drive is a pain, though.

Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 15th January 11:44

[Bill]

Durzel said:

Your insurer is probably using your attendance as a threat of sorts, i.e. that they are committed to turning up at court and defending the claim. It could be the case that the other party settles on the eve of this date.

If it were me I'd go on general principal, on the basis I don't like people to get away with illegitimate claims. An hours drive is a pain, though.

This. I suspect it's often the case that the person telling the truth turns up.

[ATG]

An hour's drive to a court seems like fairly small beer to me. Cooperating with processes like this can be a bit of a pain, but they are part of the quid pro quo of living in a country with a functioning legal system, which I'm sure you recognise as you were clearly prepared to help the insurer defend itself in the first place.

[340600]

ATG said:

they are part of the quid pro quo of living in a country with a functioning legal system

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch

[Griffith4ever]

Durzel said:

IANAL

a) The presumption is that you might be questioned in person about aspects of your Witness Statement. If it's as straightforward as you say then this doesn't sound like it would be particularly stressful.

b) It's a recorded claim either way, but you'd probably have to ask your insurer what this would mean in terms of whether it would be classified by them as an "at fault" claim, if they were to settle.

c) Costs like that can be awarded, so in the case that they lose the other party could end up paying your travel costs and any loss of earnings. These costs are capped. This assumes it's on the small claims track.

Your insurer is probably using your attendance as a threat of sorts, i.e. that they are committed to turning up at court and defending the claim. It could be the case that the other party settles on the eve of this date.

If it were me I'd go on general principal, on the basis I don't like people to get away with illegitimate claims. An hours drive is a pain, though.

Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 15th January 11:44

Cheers.

I shall go pending their reply. I'll take the R8 to make the drive enjoyable :-)

Edit thanks all for your input. Appreciated.

[dundarach]

ATG said:

An hour's drive to a court seems like fairly small beer to me. Cooperating with processes like this can be a bit of a pain, but they are part of the quid pro quo of living in a country with a functioning legal system, which I'm sure you recognise as you were clearly prepared to help the insurer defend itself in the first place.

Yes, please go and stick up for your insurers, it's the right and correct thing to do.

[BertBert]

340600 said:

ATG said:

they are part of the quid pro quo of living in a country with a functioning legal system

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch

I don't think it is at all. Sadly people do bad things to "victims". Unfortunately that means the victim has to put themselves out to some degree to participate in the "legal process". To expect otherwise is not realistic. It's not the fault of the ins co and their lawyers.

[NDA]

Griffith4ever said:

.

I shall go pending their reply. I'll take the R8 to make the drive enjoyable :-)

Try not to hit anyone on the way.

[Kidding ]

[Zetec-S]

NDA said:

Griffith4ever said:

.

I shall go pending their reply. I'll take the R8 to make the drive enjoyable :-)

Try not to hit anyone on the way.

[Kidding ]

It sounds like the OP wouldn't notice if they did anyway...

(again, only a joke )

[pavarotti1980]

Turn up and defend it. Live in the hope third party then might take their client to task for insurance fraud

[Griffith4ever]

Loving the jokes :-) I'll be super careful!

[Aretnap]

BertBert said:

340600 said:

ATG said:

they are part of the quid pro quo of living in a country with a functioning legal system

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch

I don't think it is at all. Sadly people do bad things to "victims". Unfortunately that means the victim has to put themselves out to some degree to participate in the "legal process". To expect otherwise is not realistic. It's not the fault of the ins co and their lawyers.

I think he meant that it's a bit of a stretch to say that the country has a functioning court system in general. ( Example of why) Not that it's a bit of a stretch to say that little giving evidence is necessary for a functioning court system.

[340600]

Aretnap said:

BertBert said:

340600 said:

ATG said:

they are part of the quid pro quo of living in a country with a functioning legal system

I'd say that's a bit of a stretch

I don't think it is at all. Sadly people do bad things to "victims". Unfortunately that means the victim has to put themselves out to some degree to participate in the "legal process". To expect otherwise is not realistic. It's not the fault of the ins co and their lawyers.

I think he meant that it's a bit of a stretch to say that the country has a functioning court system in general. ( Example of why) Not that it's a bit of a stretch to say that little giving evidence is necessary for a functioning court system.

Exactly that. Between huge waiting lists, pathetic sentencing, ineffective policing and the release of dangerous offenders into the community, I would not describe the UK the as a paragon of justice.

[fuzzymonkey]

The insurance company isnt been sued. You're been sued! So its in your best intrest to go to court...

Griffith4ever said:

Anyone experienced this:

Nearly 2 years ago, someone contacted my insurer and claimed I hit their parked car (I did not). I sent loads of photos of my unmarked vehicle to the insurer etc etc.

Eventually, (now) it is going to court - the 3rd party is taking my insurer to court. My insurer (or their legal 3rd party, to be precise) asked me if I'd go to court as a witness. I said of course, as long as its local. Happy to help.

Now, the court date is set and its an hours drive away, not my local court (as an FYI I also had them postpone a court date in December as I was, and still am, on holiday). I contact the legal person. They said I don't have to go, but if I don't, they will instruct my insurer to settle without admitting liability.

I have asked
a) why does this all hinge on me being there in person? Why isn't a witness statement enough.
b) if they settle, does it get marked as a claim against me?
c) who's paying my travel costs if and when it gets rejected / they lose?

I will of course get a reply but wondered who else has experienced this. I'm getting a touch pissed off at rtying to be helpful, the goalposts being moved, and the insurers seeming eagerness to settle without my presence. They also basically stopped me insuring elsewhere whilst this is going on as, in their words, "you have an outstanding claim" - my reply was "what claim!?!" I've not done anything. All I have is an outstanding "accusation".

Enlighten me :-)

[The Gauge]

ATG said:

An hour's drive to a court seems like fairly small beer to me.

I'd see it as an ideal opportunity to catch up on a good audiobook or podcast on the journey there, and back.

[Jimjimhim]

The Gauge said:

ATG said:

An hour's drive to a court seems like fairly small beer to me.

I'd see it as an ideal opportunity to catch up on a good audiobook or podcast on the journey there, and back.

Or even better get some good tunes on.

[Foss62]

fuzzymonkey said:

The insurance company isnt been sued. You're been sued! So its in your best intrest to go to court...

Griffith4ever said:

Anyone experienced this:

Nearly 2 years ago, someone contacted my insurer and claimed I hit their parked car (I did not). I sent loads of photos of my unmarked vehicle to the insurer etc etc.

Eventually, (now) it is going to court - the 3rd party is taking my insurer to court. My insurer (or their legal 3rd party, to be precise) asked me if I'd go to court as a witness. I said of course, as long as its local. Happy to help.

Now, the court date is set and its an hours drive away, not my local court (as an FYI I also had them postpone a court date in December as I was, and still am, on holiday). I contact the legal person. They said I don't have to go, but if I don't, they will instruct my insurer to settle without admitting liability.

I have asked
a) why does this all hinge on me being there in person? Why isn't a witness statement enough.
b) if they settle, does it get marked as a claim against me?
c) who's paying my travel costs if and when it gets rejected / they lose?

I will of course get a reply but wondered who else has experienced this. I'm getting a touch pissed off at rtying to be helpful, the goalposts being moved, and the insurers seeming eagerness to settle without my presence. They also basically stopped me insuring elsewhere whilst this is going on as, in their words, "you have an outstanding claim" - my reply was "what claim!?!" I've not done anything. All I have is an outstanding "accusation".

Enlighten me :-)

The role of the insurance company seems a bit strange here. I would have thought that they are optional for the OP. The third party clearly have to sue and prove their case against the OP.
Why would the insurers ‘settle’ if the OP doesn’t turn up - if the case is proven then the OP can surely decide if he wants to go through his insurance or not?

[Chrisgr31]

Isn't the reality that there are 2 parties here one is saying the OP hit their car, the OP is saying they didn't.

In court if the OP doesnt turn up their insurance company doesnt have a witness so of course they'll fold. Not only that but the OP will have a fault claim against them I assume.

If the OP turns up the other party may well fold, especially if their client is not there.