Blame for an accident.
Discussion
I know insurance companies are the ones who decide who is at fault for an accident, my question is can thier decision be questioned. I ask because I was involved in a minor RTA at the weekend. I don't belive I was to blame as someone drove up my chuff as I preformed a manouver. This person was even said it could see what I was doing but didn't react!!
Now I have reported all the details to insurance company, the damage is minimal but will still have to be repaired. I received a phonecall yesterday from the other party saying that the car was a write off(I am shocked at this as it was a 5mph impact) Could I give him the money for repairs so he doesn't have to go through insurance. I said no as I don't have that sort of cash lying around. I phoned my insurance company to inform them of this and they advised me to carry on as I was and let them deal with it. They said some documents have been put in the post(I havn't received them yet).
I have a horrible feeling I am going to kop the blame for this accident where I don't feel I should. If I am to blame then I will accept any decision but I don't want to just accept it.
Now I have reported all the details to insurance company, the damage is minimal but will still have to be repaired. I received a phonecall yesterday from the other party saying that the car was a write off(I am shocked at this as it was a 5mph impact) Could I give him the money for repairs so he doesn't have to go through insurance. I said no as I don't have that sort of cash lying around. I phoned my insurance company to inform them of this and they advised me to carry on as I was and let them deal with it. They said some documents have been put in the post(I havn't received them yet).
I have a horrible feeling I am going to kop the blame for this accident where I don't feel I should. If I am to blame then I will accept any decision but I don't want to just accept it.
It is not quite right to say it is insurance companies that decide who is at fault. Usually they do, between themselves, if it is a relatively low value claim. However, my better half is a solicitor who works for insurance companies, and deals with large claims where there are claims for injuries and subsequent treatment. (She does defendant work - she does not "chase ambulances" or work for any of those "Where theres blame there's a claim" shower of SH1T£).
In such cases, if blame is disputed, then a court can decide which party can be apportioned what percent of the blame. So if a person is claiming say £100K for injury, lost earnings etc... but was found to have been been 20% liable for the accident, and the subsequent injury, e.g. because the accident investigator found him to be doing say, 35mph in a 30 mph limit, when a car pulled out in front of him, then his payout will be reduced by 20%.
In such cases, if blame is disputed, then a court can decide which party can be apportioned what percent of the blame. So if a person is claiming say £100K for injury, lost earnings etc... but was found to have been been 20% liable for the accident, and the subsequent injury, e.g. because the accident investigator found him to be doing say, 35mph in a 30 mph limit, when a car pulled out in front of him, then his payout will be reduced by 20%.
The insurance company is never the final attributer of blame in an RTA. The civil courts are. Many insurance companies have knock for knock agreements anyway these days which means they pay for their own insureds damage. One noteable exception to this is the CIS who will go to court to get blame and costs awarded if they think they have a case.
The fact that the other car is written off should not unduly worry you. There are many cars on the road these days that can be written off by you or me touching them
The term write off is misleading because it has implies the damage is beyond repair, where in fact it is just beyond economic repair. Ie a 50p car is written off if it needs more than say 40p spending to fix it. At the opposite end of the scale a 15 year old Porsche or Ferrari would be repaired up to its full value when a 2 year old Fiat could be written off with relatively little dameage.
I am curious as to why you wish to avoid blame. If the case goes to court it is rare for small claims courts to apportion 100% of the blame to one party as the circumstances usually involve contributory negligence by both parties. Hope this helps.
The fact that the other car is written off should not unduly worry you. There are many cars on the road these days that can be written off by you or me touching them
The term write off is misleading because it has implies the damage is beyond repair, where in fact it is just beyond economic repair. Ie a 50p car is written off if it needs more than say 40p spending to fix it. At the opposite end of the scale a 15 year old Porsche or Ferrari would be repaired up to its full value when a 2 year old Fiat could be written off with relatively little dameage. I am curious as to why you wish to avoid blame. If the case goes to court it is rare for small claims courts to apportion 100% of the blame to one party as the circumstances usually involve contributory negligence by both parties. Hope this helps.
rospa said:
Zetec
Can you post the actual circumstances of the RTA? What maneovure were you doing?
I was in an unknown area when I realised I had missed a turning. I continued to the next junction and turned right looking fo a suitable place to turn around and get back on the main road. I found a side turning and turned right into it, I realised that this side turning had a t style junction at the top. Try and imagine the road layout was in a 'H' on its side style?? I realised it would be safer and better for me to turn around at the top rather than reverse onto the main street. I turned right at the top T junction and stopped, I selected reverse and then bang. The other party said it could see what I was trying to do but didn't react. HTH
nonegreen said:
I am curious as to why you wish to avoid blame. If the case goes to court it is rare for small claims courts to apportion 100% of the blame to one party as the circumstances usually involve contributory negligence by both parties. Hope this helps.
This is my first accident in 12 years of driving, I am just worried that if I am blamed my new premium (up for renewal at the end of this month) might be affected. I have a protected NCB so no worries there, I was also worried at his approach directly to me for cash. As I said I have never been in this situation before so it is all new to me.
I had an unfortunate incident with direct line a few years back. Some twat drove into my rear-end in a car park (I was stationary)..no damage to my car, but we both exchanged details anyway. I reported it to Direct Line who said that was fine, got me to fill out a form on which I clearly stated that he drove into me and I was stationary.
Sometime later got a letter from direct line saying that a claim was processed against me....phoned up to ask why. Apparently the other person claimed that I reversed into them and direct line simply paid out. When I asked why they paid out they admitted that it would cost less to pay out than to argue the toss, so they paid out. I was furious. I asked them if they had no loyalty or obilgation to me, they basically said no. So I had a fraudulent claim against my name because the insurance company's numbers looked better. Oh, and they upped my premium the next year more than enough to cover the costs. Will never be back to direct line.
Sometime later got a letter from direct line saying that a claim was processed against me....phoned up to ask why. Apparently the other person claimed that I reversed into them and direct line simply paid out. When I asked why they paid out they admitted that it would cost less to pay out than to argue the toss, so they paid out. I was furious. I asked them if they had no loyalty or obilgation to me, they basically said no. So I had a fraudulent claim against my name because the insurance company's numbers looked better. Oh, and they upped my premium the next year more than enough to cover the costs. Will never be back to direct line.
zetec said:
I am curious as to why you wish to avoid blame. If the case goes to court it is rare for small claims courts to apportion 100% of the blame to one party as the circumstances usually involve contributory negligence by both parties. Hope this helps.
This is my first accident in 12 years of driving, I am just worried that if I am blamed my new premium (up for renewal at the end of this month) might be affected. I have a protected NCB so no worries there, I was also worried at his approach directly to me for cash. As I said I have never been in this situation before so it is all new to me.
Ah now I understand. Well its seems to me that it depends on who you are insured with. If it is Bloggs and co the brokers then it may be worth offering the guy the same as your excess to get him off your back. I say this because Bloggs and co have a habit of calculating premiums based on what they feel like rather than any laid down guidance.
If however you know you are insured with a reputable company, then as you have a protected discount scheme they are basically guaranteeing to offer you full NCD next year. (You have paid an additional premium to insure your NCD). In this case tell the 3rd party that you are properly insured and would they please refer all other issues to your insurers. or F off which ever you prefer (I'd go for the former). The only reason they are looking for cash from you is so they can get money to fix the car and a full settlement from their insurers. (Scrotes) Hope this helps.
It will go down as a fault claim on your part if your insurers do not make a 100% recovery of their outlay.
It all depends on whether your insurers persue a recovery against the TPI and if they are completely successful in doing so.
I worked for AXA in motor claims recoveries last year so have a fair idea of what goes on. Essentially if there is any doubt at all initially it will be recorded on the system as a fault claim. If/when a recovery is made then the status will change to non fault and your NCB will return to as it were.
If your policy is renewed before your NCB is returned, the difference will be paid back to you.
It all depends on whether your insurers persue a recovery against the TPI and if they are completely successful in doing so.
I worked for AXA in motor claims recoveries last year so have a fair idea of what goes on. Essentially if there is any doubt at all initially it will be recorded on the system as a fault claim. If/when a recovery is made then the status will change to non fault and your NCB will return to as it were.
If your policy is renewed before your NCB is returned, the difference will be paid back to you.
"Could I give him the money for repairs so he doesn't have to go through insurance."
Wise move not to get involved with this.
Probably a clause somewhere in your insurance which could mean that if you do any discussion / negotiation then your policy is void. Just send all communications to your insurer and let them handle things.
It will be less painful in the longer run.
(side thought wonder if the 3rd party actually has insurance?)
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 6th January 13:21
Wise move not to get involved with this.
Probably a clause somewhere in your insurance which could mean that if you do any discussion / negotiation then your policy is void. Just send all communications to your insurer and let them handle things.
It will be less painful in the longer run.
(side thought wonder if the 3rd party actually has insurance?)
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 6th January 13:21
GreigM said:
I had an unfortunate incident with direct line a few years back. Some twat drove into my rear-end in a car park (I was stationary)..no damage to my car, but we both exchanged details anyway. I reported it to Direct Line who said that was fine, got me to fill out a form on which I clearly stated that he drove into me and I was stationary.
Sometime later got a letter from direct line saying that a claim was processed against me....phoned up to ask why. Apparently the other person claimed that I reversed into them and direct line simply paid out. When I asked why they paid out they admitted that it would cost less to pay out than to argue the toss, so they paid out. I was furious. I asked them if they had no loyalty or obilgation to me, they basically said no. So I had a fraudulent claim against my name because the insurance company's numbers looked better. Oh, and they upped my premium the next year more than enough to cover the costs. Will never be back to direct line.
Oh yes Direct line are a shower. I ended up in court agaist them a few years ago. They showed up with a mouthy Scouse girl solicitor who was straight out of Brookside law school. I got a Barrister and felt very smug when I got 100% blame attributed to them
I think they were a bit pissed off when the Porsche bodyshop threatened to have their engineer arrested cos he wanted to take my car to some back street bog and bash place for repair.
The phoned me and said they take care of repairs for both parties. Complete tossers got very upset when I explained that as I was the owner the car went where I decided and that anything else would be reported as theft.
nonegreen said:
They phoned me and said they take care of repairs for both parties. Complete tossers got very upset when I explained that as I was the owner the car went where I decided and that anything else would be reported as theft.
Nice. I'm always concerned that they bodyshops they go to are forced to rush the job because they're paied so little by the insurance co......
A friend had a minor shunt, and had his Honda repaired by the insurance co.
Job looked pretty good. The car was then written off a couple of years later, and the (same) insurance co tried to pay less than book, stating the car had been involved in a previous accident and would be worth less.
He pointed out their obligation to ensure his was no worse off post accident than if it hadn't have happened.....
They didn't like that either.
Were you actually stationary at the time of the impact ? If so then the other driver has to be to blame as he hit a stationary vehicle. I think he knows this (and could be reading this item!!) and wants to avoid making a claim on his insurance 'cos he knows he's up a creek without a paddle. You did right saying no to his offer AND telling your insurance company what he attempted - might be a good idea to put that in writing to your insurers and voice your concern about this shady deal at the same time.
zetec said:
I received a phonecall yesterday from the other party saying that the car was a write off(I am shocked at this as it was a 5mph impact) Could I give him the money for repairs so he doesn't have to go through insurance. I said no as I don't have that sort of cash lying around.
Do not even talk to the other party about giving him money, do not say you can't since you don't have that amount lying around. If you discuss giving him money you may find you are admiting liability, since if you weren't liable why would you think about giving him money.
Jim'schim said:
I received a phonecall yesterday from the other party saying that the car was a write off(I am shocked at this as it was a 5mph impact) Could I give him the money for repairs so he doesn't have to go through insurance. I said no as I don't have that sort of cash lying around.
Do not even talk to the other party about giving him money, do not say you can't since you don't have that amount lying around. If you discuss giving him money you may find you are admiting liability, since if you weren't liable why would you think about giving him money.
This is the reason for me starting this thread. As I have said in previous posts this is all new to me. I got worried with him asking for cash as I thought it would be his fault so why should I have to do that??
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff