Forcing Insurer to Pursue Claim?
Discussion
What recourse is there in terms of pushing an insurer to pursue a claim as non-fault rather than settling 50/50 (or some other split)?
I've only ever pursued one claim in the past and the insurer (HIC) was more than happy for me to keep putting as much evidence their way for them to fight the other party as I wanted. And the other side caved in eventually and admitted full liability.
I've only ever pursued one claim in the past and the insurer (HIC) was more than happy for me to keep putting as much evidence their way for them to fight the other party as I wanted. And the other side caved in eventually and admitted full liability.
Pretty well none in terms of forcing the insurer. When you handed over over your premium, they took on the expense of settling any claim you have and also doing so on what they consider to be the best terms. Despite the Urban Myth to the contrary, insurers do not settle 50/50 for fun. It costs them 50% of the total cost of a claim of they do so, so it is in their interest to keep liability on their side to as small a figure as possible.
They also know when a case is a loser and when it's not, so tend not to throw money away chasing a lost cause.
You can of course kick up a stink and the insurer will either play along, or simply settle 50/50 and amend their records to reflect it as non-fault.
Oh, and the "what if both sides are the same insurer" argument is equally specious. There are very, very strict rules around same insurer claims, with neither claim handler allowed to view the other sides notes. Any attempt to do so, would be viewed as gross misconduct and dealt with as such.
They also know when a case is a loser and when it's not, so tend not to throw money away chasing a lost cause.
You can of course kick up a stink and the insurer will either play along, or simply settle 50/50 and amend their records to reflect it as non-fault.
Oh, and the "what if both sides are the same insurer" argument is equally specious. There are very, very strict rules around same insurer claims, with neither claim handler allowed to view the other sides notes. Any attempt to do so, would be viewed as gross misconduct and dealt with as such.
Swervin_Mervin said:
Cheers Loon. So basically the best bet would probably be to write to the insurer with the evidence, and kicking up a fuss as to why they should be looking to pursue it? Then keep fingers crossed.
Possibly. It depends on the claim. A lot of people think they have a slam dunk non fault claim, when it's anything but. Give us an idea of what your claim is and I'll give an impartial view of it. I'm fairly sure I know what you'll say already, as it involves a roundabout 
Basically, car 1 takes 2nd exit at large roundabout and is hit in the n/s rear 1/4 by car 2 joining from the entry which lies inbetween. Roundabout is two lanes at this point (and more further round). Both entry and 2nd exit for Car 1 are 2 lanes, and Car 1 was in the o/s lane of r/bt turning into o/s lane of exit.
Reading between the lines it seems like Car 2 has gone for a gap assuming Car 1 is continuing around the roundabout rather than exiting as indicated.
Basically, car 1 takes 2nd exit at large roundabout and is hit in the n/s rear 1/4 by car 2 joining from the entry which lies inbetween. Roundabout is two lanes at this point (and more further round). Both entry and 2nd exit for Car 1 are 2 lanes, and Car 1 was in the o/s lane of r/bt turning into o/s lane of exit.
Reading between the lines it seems like Car 2 has gone for a gap assuming Car 1 is continuing around the roundabout rather than exiting as indicated.
Swervin_Mervin said:
I'm fairly sure I know what you'll say already, as it involves a roundabout
Basically, car 1 takes 2nd exit at large roundabout and is hit in the n/s rear 1/4 by car 2 joining from the entry which lies inbetween. Roundabout is two lanes at this point (and more further round). Both entry and 2nd exit for Car 1 are 2 lanes, and Car 1 was in the o/s lane of r/bt turning into o/s lane of exit.
Reading between the lines it seems like Car 2 has gone for a gap assuming Car 1 is continuing around the roundabout rather than exiting as indicated.
Due to your very difficult to understand description of events plus you own presumption of "reading between the lines" your can fully understand how the insurance company want to go 50:50.Basically, car 1 takes 2nd exit at large roundabout and is hit in the n/s rear 1/4 by car 2 joining from the entry which lies inbetween. Roundabout is two lanes at this point (and more further round). Both entry and 2nd exit for Car 1 are 2 lanes, and Car 1 was in the o/s lane of r/bt turning into o/s lane of exit.
Reading between the lines it seems like Car 2 has gone for a gap assuming Car 1 is continuing around the roundabout rather than exiting as indicated.
If car 1 is already on the roundabout and car 2 drives straight into the n/s/r of car 1, I can't see how car 1 is at fault. You have to give priority to cars already on the roundabout.
Did the coming together happen directly in front of the entry road being used by car 2? Or was car 2 on the roundabout when car 1 came across in front of it?
Did the coming together happen directly in front of the entry road being used by car 2? Or was car 2 on the roundabout when car 1 came across in front of it?
Jobbo said:
If car 1 is already on the roundabout and car 2 drives straight into the n/s/r of car 1, I can't see how car 1 is at fault. You have to give priority to cars already on the roundabout.
Did the coming together happen directly in front of the entry road being used by car 2? Or was car 2 on the roundabout when car 1 came across in front of it?
This^^Did the coming together happen directly in front of the entry road being used by car 2? Or was car 2 on the roundabout when car 1 came across in front of it?
The fact the other car hit the rear quarter of the first car would indicate the 2nd car at fault. I had a similar accident in that I was going round a roundabout and a car entered from my left and took the side of my car off (front door backwards) thankfully she admitted liability and the car was fixed (£6k worth of damage - no hire car as I used a spare car at work but I digress).
I certainly would kick up a fuss if they are wanting 50:50 settlement, that is if you are being 100% honest with the facts
Claims procedure according to policy T&C's: The Insurer will indemnify you against claims against you by the third party(ies). At inception of the policy you pass all rights of action in settlement over to the insurer and they have accepted all legal liability subject to what you told them on the proposal form. They are entitled to pursue the claim, or not, in any way they choose and you have no input into this in the way of telling them how to proceed although they need as much information as possible to come to a decision.
Don't forget they are overseen by the FCA and will not do anything that can't reasonably be justified. They will settle most claims on a least-cost basis having regard to contract law. Contrary to common belief they are not robbers and thieves looking to screw every punter they can! They are legitimate businesses who compete in the same market as every other insurer every day. It constantly amazes me how ridiculously cheap motor insurance is, considering the potential for massive claims.
In your case of a 50/50 it would seem that there is difficulty in proving who is at fault and to pursue the matter would result in disproportionate costs considering the damage caused. However your interests extend only to your insurer noting your account with a 'No Blame or Fault' attachment and you getting that decision in writing. Don't then forget to watch your next renewal! By the way, if your policy contains the legal cover clause and it is activated by this case or similar, at the end of it all you will be wondering just who are the legal people working for -you or the insurer.
Don't forget they are overseen by the FCA and will not do anything that can't reasonably be justified. They will settle most claims on a least-cost basis having regard to contract law. Contrary to common belief they are not robbers and thieves looking to screw every punter they can! They are legitimate businesses who compete in the same market as every other insurer every day. It constantly amazes me how ridiculously cheap motor insurance is, considering the potential for massive claims.
In your case of a 50/50 it would seem that there is difficulty in proving who is at fault and to pursue the matter would result in disproportionate costs considering the damage caused. However your interests extend only to your insurer noting your account with a 'No Blame or Fault' attachment and you getting that decision in writing. Don't then forget to watch your next renewal! By the way, if your policy contains the legal cover clause and it is activated by this case or similar, at the end of it all you will be wondering just who are the legal people working for -you or the insurer.
Jobbo said:
If car 1 is already on the roundabout and car 2 drives straight into the n/s/r of car 1, I can't see how car 1 is at fault. You have to give priority to cars already on the roundabout.
Did the coming together happen directly in front of the entry road being used by car 2? Or was car 2 on the roundabout when car 1 came across in front of it?
Let's call them arms 1, 2 and 3. So Car 1 enters at 1 and leaves at 3. Car 2 enters at 2.Did the coming together happen directly in front of the entry road being used by car 2? Or was car 2 on the roundabout when car 1 came across in front of it?
2 and 3 are right next to each other. Almost on top of each other in fact. So, to answer your question, you start to turn for exit 3 as you're coming across entry 1. Car 1 was left against the inside of the splitter island for Arm 3, so effectively had already exited (or mostly exited at least) the junction when hit.
However, I suspect the insurers are thinking exactly along the lines of your last question. They've said they won't even contact the other insurer if driver of Car 1 claims, unless the driver of Car 2 claims.
Thorodin said:
Claims procedure according to policy T&C's: The Insurer will indemnify you against claims against you by the third party(ies). At inception of the policy you pass all rights of action in settlement over to the insurer and they have accepted all legal liability subject to what you told them on the proposal form. They are entitled to pursue the claim, or not, in any way they choose and you have no input into this in the way of telling them how to proceed although they need as much information as possible to come to a decision.
Don't forget they are overseen by the FCA and will not do anything that can't reasonably be justified. They will settle most claims on a least-cost basis having regard to contract law. Contrary to common belief they are not robbers and thieves looking to screw every punter they can! They are legitimate businesses who compete in the same market as every other insurer every day. It constantly amazes me how ridiculously cheap motor insurance is, considering the potential for massive claims.
In your case of a 50/50 it would seem that there is difficulty in proving who is at fault and to pursue the matter would result in disproportionate costs considering the damage caused. However your interests extend only to your insurer noting your account with a 'No Blame or Fault' attachment and you getting that decision in writing. Don't then forget to watch your next renewal! By the way, if your policy contains the legal cover clause and it is activated by this case or similar, at the end of it all you will be wondering just who are the legal people working for -you or the insurer.
I'm interested in what you mean here. Are you suggesting that even if the insurer of Car 1 coughs up for the claim, you can get it recorded as a non fault claim? If so how does that work?Don't forget they are overseen by the FCA and will not do anything that can't reasonably be justified. They will settle most claims on a least-cost basis having regard to contract law. Contrary to common belief they are not robbers and thieves looking to screw every punter they can! They are legitimate businesses who compete in the same market as every other insurer every day. It constantly amazes me how ridiculously cheap motor insurance is, considering the potential for massive claims.
In your case of a 50/50 it would seem that there is difficulty in proving who is at fault and to pursue the matter would result in disproportionate costs considering the damage caused. However your interests extend only to your insurer noting your account with a 'No Blame or Fault' attachment and you getting that decision in writing. Don't then forget to watch your next renewal! By the way, if your policy contains the legal cover clause and it is activated by this case or similar, at the end of it all you will be wondering just who are the legal people working for -you or the insurer.
As for the legals. I've had to deal with legals in a claim only once and quite frankly they were f***ing useless. Couldn't write, couldn't interpret the evidence, couldn't even take notes correctly. Had to re-write their submissions for them on 2 occasions. Complete wastes of space.
Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Wednesday 21st January 21:18
The thing that everyone is missing here is that insurers base their decisions not on whims, but on years of experience of cases that they've run to court amd the outcomes thereof. The primary case law for roundabout accidents is Grace vs Tanner. Most, but not all, roundabout claims involve situations very similar to G vs T, where one party (in the left lane) is continuing round a roundabout, whilst the other is trying to exit from a lane to the right. G vs T set the blame at 50/50, courts find this way when asked, where both parties are claiming the other was at fault and both are credible witnesses. Being credible is a piece of piss in a Mags court.
Your insurer is unlikely to spend c£2000 litigating this and only get the outcome that the other side will have offered already at 50/50, probably on a Part 36 / Calderbank basis, thus leaving them open to the other sides costs as well.
Your insurer is unlikely to spend c£2000 litigating this and only get the outcome that the other side will have offered already at 50/50, probably on a Part 36 / Calderbank basis, thus leaving them open to the other sides costs as well.
Swervin_Mervin said:
I'm interested in what you mean here. Are you suggesting that even if the insurer of Car 1 coughs up for the claim, you can get it recorded as a non fault claim? If so how does that work?
As for the legals. I've had to deal with legals in a claim only once and quite frankly they were f***ing useless. Couldn't write, couldn't interpret the evidence, couldn't even take notes correctly. Had to re-write their submissions for them on 2 occasions. Complete wastes of space.
I answered the question in the first paragraph pretty well in my first answer. As for the legals. I've had to deal with legals in a claim only once and quite frankly they were f***ing useless. Couldn't write, couldn't interpret the evidence, couldn't even take notes correctly. Had to re-write their submissions for them on 2 occasions. Complete wastes of space.
Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Wednesday 21st January 21:18
LoonR1 said:
The thing that everyone is missing here is that insurers base their decisions not on whims, but on years of experience of cases that they've run to court amd the outcomes thereof. The primary case law for roundabout accidents is Grace vs Tanner. Most, but not all, roundabout claims involve situations very similar to G vs T, where one party (in the left lane) is continuing round a roundabout, whilst the other is trying to exit from a lane to the right. G vs T set the blame at 50/50, courts find this way when asked, where both parties are claiming the other was at fault and both are credible witnesses. Being credible is a piece of piss in a Mags court.
Your insurer is unlikely to spend c£2000 litigating this and only get the outcome that the other side will have offered already at 50/50, probably on a Part 36 / Calderbank basis, thus leaving them open to the other sides costs as well.
Cheers again Loon. And apologies as I'd missed that bit in your first post.Your insurer is unlikely to spend c£2000 litigating this and only get the outcome that the other side will have offered already at 50/50, probably on a Part 36 / Calderbank basis, thus leaving them open to the other sides costs as well.
Swervin_Mervin said:
I'm interested in what you mean here. Are you suggesting that even if the insurer of Car 1 coughs up for the claim, you can get it recorded as a non fault claim? If so how does that work?
As for the legals. I've had to deal with legals in a claim only once and quite frankly they were f***ing useless. Couldn't write, couldn't interpret the evidence, couldn't even take notes correctly. Had to re-write their submissions for them on 2 occasions. Complete wastes of space.
I answered the question in the first paragraph pretty well in my first answer. As for the legals. I've had to deal with legals in a claim only once and quite frankly they were f***ing useless. Couldn't write, couldn't interpret the evidence, couldn't even take notes correctly. Had to re-write their submissions for them on 2 occasions. Complete wastes of space.
Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Wednesday 21st January 21:18
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff