Insurer revoking admission of liability

[P155flaps]

Will try and keep it as short as possible …

Lad was knocked off his motorbike. Car pulled out of junction in front of him and went over bonnet.

Few bruises, whiplash and back sore a month later but nothing major his bike virtually new 900 mile KTM duke written off.

Initially contacted his insurers and opened a claim, referred to 4th dimension claims management. Deemed at non fault which was good as due to cost was 3rd party wanted close to £1500 fully comp for a £3.5k bike vs £600.

In interim other insurer (Admiral) were in touch to admit liability (have in writing and on voicemail) and said would take care of claim. Thought would be easier quicker and cheaper all around to go with them so cancelled claim with his insurer and let them deal.

At same time queried physio support and the said would need medial report to consider any sort of injury support. Ambulance was in attendance but didn’t need hospital.

They sent hire bike and assessor a week and a half ago who wrote off and we were waiting on settlement.

In interim as lad wasn’t getting better via his separate legal cover have seen a physio and started a claim for 8 sessions.

Last night got a call to say we are pulling liability admission and now deem 50/50.

Queried why on earth given full admission of liability and they said would investigate with the body injury team. Which leads me to believe they have seen a parallel claim start for personal injury (won’t be much only wanted physio covered) and decided to fight it.

Can an insurer really admit liability multiple times and just before payout decide it’s not their fault after all? No witnesses but cut and dry pull out in front of someone (unless other party has come up with one ….)

Will refer back to our insurers and start that process again but very annoying!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

P155flaps said:

Can an insurer really admit liability multiple times and just before payout decide it’s not their fault after all?

Yes. It's not a contract, for whatever reason they have changed their mind. Maybe more info has come to light. Whatever the reason, they can admit liability and then think better of it. In the same way they can deny liability but then end up accepting it.

[Decky_Q]

If he has a seperate injury claim somewhere else and this has come to light they will want to mitigate their losses by aportioning the liability for the injury portion of the claim.

[Red9zero]

I'm having physio at the moment at £250 a session, so 8 sessions would be £2k. Probably enough for the insurer to think again.

[BertBert]

P155flaps said:

Will try and keep it as short as possible …

Lad was knocked off his motorbike. Car pulled out of junction in front of him and went over bonnet.

Few bruises, whiplash and back sore a month later but nothing major his bike virtually new 900 mile KTM duke written off.

Initially contacted his insurers and opened a claim, referred to 4th dimension claims management. Deemed at non fault which was good as due to cost was 3rd party wanted close to £1500 fully comp for a £3.5k bike vs £600.

In interim other insurer (Admiral) were in touch to admit liability (have in writing and on voicemail) and said would take care of claim. Thought would be easier quicker and cheaper all around to go with them so cancelled claim with his insurer and let them deal.

At same time queried physio support and the said would need medial report to consider any sort of injury support. Ambulance was in attendance but didn’t need hospital.

They sent hire bike and assessor a week and a half ago who wrote off and we were waiting on settlement.

In interim as lad wasn’t getting better via his separate legal cover have seen a physio and started a claim for 8 sessions.

Last night got a call to say we are pulling liability admission and now deem 50/50.

Queried why on earth given full admission of liability and they said would investigate with the body injury team. Which leads me to believe they have seen a parallel claim start for personal injury (won’t be much only wanted physio covered) and decided to fight it.

Can an insurer really admit liability multiple times and just before payout decide it’s not their fault after all? No witnesses but cut and dry pull out in front of someone (unless other party has come up with one ….)

Will refer back to our insurers and start that process again but very annoying!

Sadly it's part of the risk of going it alone. Hopefully your insurers can pick it up ok.

[Terminator X]

If no independent witnesses it will most likely end up as 50/50 claim. This is why imho so many people make up whiplash claims etc.

TX.

[Mad Maximus]

Feel your pain. Could you not go back to insurer now and say they are messing about I need you to take over ?

[BertBert]

Mad Maximus said:

Feel your pain. Could you not go back to insurer now and say they are messing about I need you to take over ?

P155flaps said:

Will refer back to our insurers and start that process again but very annoying!

[P155flaps]

Terminator X said:

If no independent witnesses it will most likely end up as 50/50 claim. This is why imho so many people make up whiplash claims etc.

TX.

Post accident pics fairly clear what happened car pulling out of side road across road to travel in opposite direction to son … he just didn’t see son. But yeah agreed too many people take piss, I was rear ended a few years ago and was actively encouraged to make a claim …. I didn’t!

Wouldn’t have bothered with the lads either but he does need some physio as still not right 4 weeks later.

Just thankful it’s only soft tissue / muscle as going into side of car and over bonnet could have been allot worse if not travelling well below the 30 limit.

Edited by P155flaps on Wednesday 19th February 17:42

[P155flaps]

BertBert said:

Sadly it's part of the risk of going it alone. Hopefully your insurers can pick it up ok.

Yep fingers crossed will call tmrw and attempt to re-open claim started and paused.

[Antony Moxey]

How on earth can a car pulling out from a junction in front of a motorbike causing the rider to fly over the bonnet be deemed 50/50?

[E-bmw]

Antony Moxey said:

How on earth can a car pulling out from a junction in front of a motorbike causing the rider to fly over the bonnet be deemed 50/50?

My guess would be they are going to try to claim excess speed as a contributing factor.

[Antony Moxey]

E-bmw said:

Antony Moxey said:

How on earth can a car pulling out from a junction in front of a motorbike causing the rider to fly over the bonnet be deemed 50/50?

My guess would be they are going to try to claim excess speed as a contributing factor.

Yes, but hardly a mitigating factor for the car pulling out - ‘well he was going too fast’, ‘well don’t pull out in front of him then - either you’re a really poor judge of speed or you did it as some sort of ‘I’ll show you’ to get him to slow down’.

Either way, it’s not portraying the puller outer in a good light.

[vonhosen]

Antony Moxey said:

E-bmw said:

Antony Moxey said:

How on earth can a car pulling out from a junction in front of a motorbike causing the rider to fly over the bonnet be deemed 50/50?

My guess would be they are going to try to claim excess speed as a contributing factor.

Yes, but hardly a mitigating factor for the car pulling out - ‘well he was going too fast’, ‘well don’t pull out in front of him then - either you’re a really poor judge of speed or you did it as some sort of ‘I’ll show you’ to get him to slow down’.

Either way, it’s not portraying the puller outer in a good light.

Historically courts don't find excess speed in such situations immaterial.

(Not alleging though that the OPs son was using excess speed with that).

[BertBert]

vonhosen said:

Historically courts don't find excess speed in such situations immaterial.

Is that the same as historically courts find excess speed material?

[KTMsm]

Antony Moxey said:

How on earth can a car pulling out from a junction in front of a motorbike causing the rider to fly over the bonnet be deemed 50/50?

It's taken 2 months for the other party to admit liability in my case

They drove their car into my mother's house !

Quite how they thought the house could jump into the road...

[Panclan]

It took the 3rd parties insurance 6 months to admit liability after I was knocked off by a car turning back on to a roundabout after exiting it. I did have front & rear camera's on my bike at the time too, I'm not sure if they were ever shared between insurance companies.

[GasEngineer]

BertBert said:

vonhosen said:

Historically courts don't find excess speed in such situations immaterial.

Is that the same as historically courts find excess speed material?

Litotes.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Why did he need a hire bike?

[Sheepshanks]

P155flaps said:

Ambulance was in attendance but didn’t need hospital.

Normally the police attend traffic accidents if an ambulance is called - did that not happen in this case?