50/50 claim - but I disagree. Anything I can do?
Discussion
I had an accident in a works van about a month ago.
It was a country lane and a sewage truck was on my side of the road coming around a blind bend.
It's taken this long for the fleet insurers to say that they are going through with a 50:50 fault.
I'm not happy as in my eyes, he was ok the wrong side of the road and I was well within and couldn't do anything about it.
I am cross because I think our side should fight it, but when I suggested that to the insurer I was told that it's their decision whether to go to court and as it's too expensive they will accept the 50:50.
Is there anything else I can do?
It was a country lane and a sewage truck was on my side of the road coming around a blind bend.
It's taken this long for the fleet insurers to say that they are going through with a 50:50 fault.
I'm not happy as in my eyes, he was ok the wrong side of the road and I was well within and couldn't do anything about it.
I am cross because I think our side should fight it, but when I suggested that to the insurer I was told that it's their decision whether to go to court and as it's too expensive they will accept the 50:50.
Is there anything else I can do?
When you say country lane, you presumably mean single track road rather than anything more substantial?
If it's wide enough for markings then you may have a complaint. Even then, the insurer takes on your liability and thus has a right to mitigate its losses. It is under no obligation to throw good money after bad or to take a on a case against the other party's insurers where it is not clear that, on the evidence it has, it should succeed.
Look at it from the truck's perspective: what could he have done differently? Not gone down the lane, clearly, but could he have got around the corner more slowly and therefore left you enough room to pass? Presumably his insurers are proposing the 50:50 settlement. Why do you think that is?
Could you stop in the distance that you could see to be clear?
Just because you happened to be closer to the hedge does not mean that the blame is all the other party's.
The allocation of split blame may just mean that there is no negligence by either party. If it should have gone 70:30 rather than 50:50 then the difference to you will be 20% of your excess plus 20% of any personal injury claim - you won't find that the underlying premium or no-claims discount are affected, so in the long term it will make very little difference to you.
If it's wide enough for markings then you may have a complaint. Even then, the insurer takes on your liability and thus has a right to mitigate its losses. It is under no obligation to throw good money after bad or to take a on a case against the other party's insurers where it is not clear that, on the evidence it has, it should succeed.
Look at it from the truck's perspective: what could he have done differently? Not gone down the lane, clearly, but could he have got around the corner more slowly and therefore left you enough room to pass? Presumably his insurers are proposing the 50:50 settlement. Why do you think that is?
Could you stop in the distance that you could see to be clear?
Just because you happened to be closer to the hedge does not mean that the blame is all the other party's.
The allocation of split blame may just mean that there is no negligence by either party. If it should have gone 70:30 rather than 50:50 then the difference to you will be 20% of your excess plus 20% of any personal injury claim - you won't find that the underlying premium or no-claims discount are affected, so in the long term it will make very little difference to you.
Although country lane it was wide enough to have white lines in the centre and the truck had space to move over.
I had actually passed this truck 2 times earlier that morning.
And when he drove on after the incident other cars passed him with no problem after he had moved over.
It was a NSL.
It was on the apex of the blind bend that I saw him so no chance to stop.
The bushes were 8ft high on both sides so couldn't see him coming from a distance either.
I drove into the hedge to prevent a full on head on collision. But ended up half in the bush and stuck next to the side of his vehicle.
Even a bike wouldn't have fitted through the space he left
I had actually passed this truck 2 times earlier that morning.
And when he drove on after the incident other cars passed him with no problem after he had moved over.
It was a NSL.
It was on the apex of the blind bend that I saw him so no chance to stop.
The bushes were 8ft high on both sides so couldn't see him coming from a distance either.
I drove into the hedge to prevent a full on head on collision. But ended up half in the bush and stuck next to the side of his vehicle.
Even a bike wouldn't have fitted through the space he left
OK... if you were on the apex of the bend and didn't have time to stop it suggests that there might have been room to get past a truck that was going straight on but not one that was turning as it might have had to in order to deal with a tight turn.
Did you take photos showing the position of each vehicle after impact?
Did you take photos showing the position of each vehicle after impact?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff