No fault accident - other party wants to avoid claim

[The Cardinal]

My wife was hit by a van while stationary, after merging into a lane. Low speed, with damage limited to the bumper skin by the look of things. No witnesses or dash cam footage.



The other party has not technically admitted liability but has proactively sent a quote from their father-in-law’s body shop, and wants to deal direct rather than via insurers.

Unfortunately my wife was on the way back from physiotherapy (for long-standing back pain) at the time and now feels in more pain. This really is a genuine situation and we dearly wish it wasn’t the case. Obviously the prior back pain / treatment would need integrated management and I doubt it’s straightforward.

This all sounds like a case for the insurers, but I’m concerned about them denying liability.

Any views welcome.

[Wacky Racer]

The fact that you have some paperwork relating to the accident from the other party should prove their involvement, it does not really matter who's fault it was,

Any damage to the rear of a car is usually the fault of the party behind.....(Unless you were reversing of course)

Go through your insurance, that's what you pay them for.

Personal injury claims can drag on years, as insurers need to see if there are any long term affects.

That damage could have been caused with a very low speed impact..

[richhead]

Wacky Racer said:

The fact that you have some paperwork relating to the accident from the other party should prove their involvement, it does not really matter who's fault it was,

Any damage to the rear of a car is usually the fault of the party behind.....(Unless you were reversing of course)

Go through your insurance, that's what you pay them for.

Personal injury claims can drag on years, as insurers need to see if there are any long term affects.

That damage could have been caused with a very low speed impact..

that looks like a very low speed impact, que compo face

[GasEngineer]

AIUI there is no down side to you now reporting the accident to your insurers for them to deal with,

Given that you have written evidence that can be taken as admission of fault from the third party why would you not want to involve your insurers?

Most insurers ask you to report accidents to them anyway even if you are not claiming.

[fourstardan]

I wouldn't trust this blokes approved repairer, surely he would know how the insurance game works if he was a decent repairer and not someone with a spray tin.

Go through insurance.

[JQ]

richhead said:

Wacky Racer said:

The fact that you have some paperwork relating to the accident from the other party should prove their involvement, it does not really matter who's fault it was,

Any damage to the rear of a car is usually the fault of the party behind.....(Unless you were reversing of course)

Go through your insurance, that's what you pay them for.

Personal injury claims can drag on years, as insurers need to see if there are any long term affects.

That damage could have been caused with a very low speed impact..

that looks like a very low speed impact, que compo face

No it doesn’t, you have no idea from that photo. Rear bumpers are designed to absorb impacts. I was hit whilst stationary at lights and the damage was virtually invisible, far less than on that photo and the impact was fairly substantial. It was only once you got under the car you realised the crash bar and boot floor were significantly deformed and the other car was in bad shape.

OP - don’t mess around if there’s a potential injury, contact your insurer and let them deal with it.

[Alex Z]

Claim direct from their insurers every time. It’s very common for people to admit liability then change their mind when the repairs turn out to be more costly than anticipated. That doesn’t sound as likely this time, but if there’s genuine potential injury as well then you need to take that into account.

[The Cardinal]

Thanks All - reported via insurance company.

[Wacky Racer]

The Cardinal said:

Thanks All - reported via insurance company.

You have done the right thing.

Hopefully your wife is OK in a few days.

[davek_964]

The Cardinal said:

My wife was hit by a van while stationary, after merging into a lane

I bet they don't admit liability : "She cut in front of me at the last minute, I had no chance to stop"

I'll be surprised if this is not 50/50.

[BertBert]

Alex Z said:

Claim direct from their insurers every time. It’s very common for people to admit liability then change their mind when the repairs turn out to be more costly than anticipated. That doesn’t sound as likely this time, but if there’s genuine potential injury as well then you need to take that into account.

Even that sounds risky if you are looking at a PI claim. Ok if it's a straightforward car damage with no sense of the third party denying liability. But car damage plus PI? Nah, use your own insurer as the OP has done.

[KungFuPanda]

davek_964 said:

The Cardinal said:

My wife was hit by a van while stationary, after merging into a lane

I bet they don't admit liability : "She cut in front of me at the last minute, I had no chance to stop"

I'll be surprised if this is not 50/50.

Most people seem to have missed this. So she merged in front of the van? The van driver may argue that she drove into a space in front of his vehicle thereby negating his safe braking distance causing him to collide with the rear of her vehicle.

[KungFuPanda]

BertBert said:

Alex Z said:

Claim direct from their insurers every time. It’s very common for people to admit liability then change their mind when the repairs turn out to be more costly than anticipated. That doesn’t sound as likely this time, but if there’s genuine potential injury as well then you need to take that into account.

Even that sounds risky if you are looking at a PI claim. Ok if it's a straightforward car damage with no sense of the third party denying liability. But car damage plus PI? Nah, use your own insurer as the OP has done.

The OP’s own insurer won’t deal with the PI claim as it’s an uninsured loss. They probably pass it into her legal expenses insurer if she has one but they’ll only proceed if she has a better than 50% chance of successfully pursuing a claim.

[BertBert]

KungFuPanda said:

The OP’s own insurer won’t deal with the PI claim as it’s an uninsured loss. They probably pass it into her legal expenses insurer if she has one but they’ll only proceed if she has a better than 50% chance of successfully pursuing a claim.

You don't know what cover the OP had in place (as don't I), but the principle still holds - I'd not try a DIY claim for injury. The third party's insurance will definitely cover 3rd part injury.

[KungFuPanda]

BertBert said:

KungFuPanda said:

The OP’s own insurer won’t deal with the PI claim as it’s an uninsured loss. They probably pass it into her legal expenses insurer if she has one but they’ll only proceed if she has a better than 50% chance of successfully pursuing a claim.

You don't know what cover the OP had in place (as don't I), but the principle still holds - I'd not try a DIY claim for injury. The third party's insurance will definitely cover 3rd part injury.

We might be at cross purposes here. How do you think the OP’s partner’s insurer will deal with her PI claim if she asked them to deal with it?

[Glassman]

Unless you go for a cash settlement on your terms, letting them dictate where your car gets repaired sends you down a rabbit hole.

If they want to avoid insurance you should have more say in the matter.

Reporting to insurance probably is the best way forward. I hope for your sake they don't start to twist the narrative.

[eccles]

The other thing to remember is that most insurance backed repairs come with some sort of warranty. It this chaps father in law does a poor job and the paint is awful in 6 months, what come back have you got?

[r3g]

The Cardinal said:

My wife was hit by a van while stationary, after merging into a lane. Low speed, with damage limited to the bumper skin by the look of things. No witnesses or dash cam footage.



The other party has not technically admitted liability but has proactively sent a quote from their father-in-law’s body shop, and wants to deal direct rather than via insurers.

Unfortunately my wife was on the way back from physiotherapy (for long-standing back pain) at the time and now feels in more pain. This really is a genuine situation and we dearly wish it wasn’t the case. Obviously the prior back pain / treatment would need integrated management and I doubt it’s straightforward.

This all sounds like a case for the insurers, but I’m concerned about them denying liability.

Any views welcome.

Uh-huh...

[Panamax]

The Cardinal said:

The other party has not technically admitted liability but has proactively sent a quote from their father-in-law’s body shop.

How much was the quote? We'll soon know if the whole thing is BS.

[NikBartlett]

Is the other party insured ?