Car crash advice - going to court?
Discussion
Since my crash on 13th november, Admiral (my insurance) have held Chaucer (third party) totally responsible for the crash based on account of evidence and 2 witness statements both in my favour.
Chaucer have only just responded after a month issuing a summons against Admiral. Admiral will fight this, and I've said I'm happy to go to court considering I'm not losing my NCB for a crash which definitely wasn't my fault.
Is this a bad thing for me, obviously Chaucer are a LOT smaller than Admiral, so Admiral will most likely have better solicitors as well as the evidence going in my favour and it was a rear-end crash which could've only been done if I reversed in to the other driver...
What should I expect, or is there anyone else who has been in this situation?
Chaucer have only just responded after a month issuing a summons against Admiral. Admiral will fight this, and I've said I'm happy to go to court considering I'm not losing my NCB for a crash which definitely wasn't my fault.
Is this a bad thing for me, obviously Chaucer are a LOT smaller than Admiral, so Admiral will most likely have better solicitors as well as the evidence going in my favour and it was a rear-end crash which could've only been done if I reversed in to the other driver...
What should I expect, or is there anyone else who has been in this situation?
Limited experience obviously but the two times someone blatantly hit me, and with independent witnesses, they took it to the very last moment possible and then admitted 100% fault before court.
However, it took an enormously long time (18-24 months IIRC) and you will have to pay higher premiums for a while and claim it back later while you have an "unresolved claim" in your history.
There is nothing much you can do to speed it up other than hassle your insurer now and again.
As ever, don't panic.
However, it took an enormously long time (18-24 months IIRC) and you will have to pay higher premiums for a while and claim it back later while you have an "unresolved claim" in your history.
There is nothing much you can do to speed it up other than hassle your insurer now and again.
As ever, don't panic.
Never really knew that about Chaucer, but still... not sure why they'd wanna pay more to go to court, when it's pretty much everything in my favour. Even the witnesses said they'd happily go to court for it... It seems a little pointless that they're willing to drag something out when I'd assume they're just going to lose?
I know it's not much help to you but I had a non fault collision last Thursday night, my insurance werent much help apart from telling me I had to pay my £550 excess to get repairs done and that I'd lose my protected bonus, I get the feeling it was a waste of the extra money.
I phoned The other party's insurer Friday PM ready for a rant only to be told they had tried to make contact with me on Friday morning and are accepting full liability and offering to sort out repairs at my convenience, since then they've contacted me a couple more times asking if myself and my wife are OK (yes I know they are scared I might claim viplash but at least they but at least they seem to be sincere) and to sort out repairs and a hire car. It all seems a bit too good to be true and too easy, I'll wait and see, but in clear cut cases such as yours OP why do they have to make it so difficult and no doubt It'll cost them more in the long run. I hope you get a positive outcome at the end of it all
I phoned The other party's insurer Friday PM ready for a rant only to be told they had tried to make contact with me on Friday morning and are accepting full liability and offering to sort out repairs at my convenience, since then they've contacted me a couple more times asking if myself and my wife are OK (yes I know they are scared I might claim viplash but at least they but at least they seem to be sincere) and to sort out repairs and a hire car. It all seems a bit too good to be true and too easy, I'll wait and see, but in clear cut cases such as yours OP why do they have to make it so difficult and no doubt It'll cost them more in the long run. I hope you get a positive outcome at the end of it all
chevy55 said:
I know it's not much help to you but I had a non fault collision last Thursday night, my insurance werent much help apart from telling me I had to pay my £550 excess to get repairs done and that I'd lose my protected bonus, I get the feeling it was a waste of the extra money.
I phoned The other party's insurer Friday PM ready for a rant only to be told they had tried to make contact with me on Friday morning and are accepting full liability and offering to sort out repairs at my convenience, since then they've contacted me a couple more times asking if myself and my wife are OK (yes I know they are scared I might claim viplash but at least they but at least they seem to be sincere) and to sort out repairs and a hire car. It all seems a bit too good to be true and too easy, I'll wait and see, but in clear cut cases such as yours OP why do they have to make it so difficult and no doubt It'll cost them more in the long run. I hope you get a positive outcome at the end of it all
Might give them a call later, just for an update from their side.I phoned The other party's insurer Friday PM ready for a rant only to be told they had tried to make contact with me on Friday morning and are accepting full liability and offering to sort out repairs at my convenience, since then they've contacted me a couple more times asking if myself and my wife are OK (yes I know they are scared I might claim viplash but at least they but at least they seem to be sincere) and to sort out repairs and a hire car. It all seems a bit too good to be true and too easy, I'll wait and see, but in clear cut cases such as yours OP why do they have to make it so difficult and no doubt It'll cost them more in the long run. I hope you get a positive outcome at the end of it all
Did the person who hit you admit liability?
The reason why third party insurers contact you to admit liability and sort out a hire car and repair to your vehicle is because it is cheaper for them than using your insurance company and claiming off the third party insurance,more so if your insurance use a management company.
If the OPs insurer Admiral are 100% sure the third party insurer Chaucer is liable and have a couple of independent witnesses statements it seam unusual why Ghaucer do not just pay up as if they admit liability just before a court case it will cost them more or if found against them in court considerably more.There may be a reason for Chaucer acting in this way.
If the OPs insurer Admiral are 100% sure the third party insurer Chaucer is liable and have a couple of independent witnesses statements it seam unusual why Ghaucer do not just pay up as if they admit liability just before a court case it will cost them more or if found against them in court considerably more.There may be a reason for Chaucer acting in this way.
If it goes to Court, even if you have witnesses and statements they may not count for much if the witnesses do not attend Court. Some JP's virtually dismiss statements if the witness is not there to back it up under questioning.
This is why the "Other side" literally take it to the Court Room Steps. As soon as the witness shows up they know they are sunk.
This is why the "Other side" literally take it to the Court Room Steps. As soon as the witness shows up they know they are sunk.
over_the_hill said:
If it goes to Court, even if you have witnesses and statements they may not count for much if the witnesses do not attend Court. Some JP's virtually dismiss statements if the witness is not there to back it up under questioning.
This is why the "Other side" literally take it to the Court Room Steps. As soon as the witness shows up they know they are sunk.
In their statements, they both said they're happy for it to go to court providing they have plenty of notice to tell work and book it off.This is why the "Other side" literally take it to the Court Room Steps. As soon as the witness shows up they know they are sunk.
Confused as to what Chaucer are taking their time with.
walm said:
Why would they rush to pay out?
The longer they delay all the better for their working capital.
Not true. One of their key performance indicators is the length of time it takes to settle a claim. If there's no reasonable prospects of defending a claim, it's cheaper and more economical to settle a claim in it's infancy. Also, if proceedings are issued and liability is disputed, the solicitor's costs get ever higher too. The longer they delay all the better for their working capital.
The companies usually play games with each other and hold off until last minute just to be a PITA.
I signed off paperwork saying I will go to court and my insurance said they were putting it forward because the other party wasn't replying with a settlement, they let it go to the final day and put a settlement figure in.
I signed off paperwork saying I will go to court and my insurance said they were putting it forward because the other party wasn't replying with a settlement, they let it go to the final day and put a settlement figure in.
KungFuPanda said:
Not true. One of their key performance indicators is the length of time it takes to settle a claim. If there's no reasonable prospects of defending a claim, it's cheaper and more economical to settle a claim in it's infancy. Also, if proceedings are issued and liability is disputed, the solicitor's costs get ever higher too.
KPI for who?Investors/shareholders? Nope.
Some publicity/advertising metric they boast about? Perhaps but I have never seen it and I strongly doubt it is used much or persuades many people one way or the other.
Fair point on the solicitors costs. I really meant they can happily delay as long as possible ahead of the solicitor stage.
TonyTony said:
The companies usually play games with each other and hold off until last minute just to be a PITA.
I signed off paperwork saying I will go to court and my insurance said they were putting it forward because the other party wasn't replying with a settlement, they let it go to the final day and put a settlement figure in.
This happened with me - took 18 months to sort out and only finished when my insurance company issued started court proceedings against the other driver.I signed off paperwork saying I will go to court and my insurance said they were putting it forward because the other party wasn't replying with a settlement, they let it go to the final day and put a settlement figure in.
Right so gave them a call at lunch (Admiral):
They claim the letter they sent was unclear so they're not sure if they've issued a summons or not, on top of this, Admiral have only contacted 1 independent witness, not two... So they've now asked my other witness for his statement. Great.
Secondly, my other witness sent his statement to Chaucer on the 19th November. Chaucer are stating they never received the email, so he's sent a picture to me which I sent to Admiral of him emailing it them showing the time stamp as 19th November 2015. He's also now sent a statement to Admiral.
A handler, not my case handler nevertheless a handler, said it looks like it'll be a split decision. Both statements from INDEPENDENT witnesses say he came in to my lane trying to avoid traffic, and one also said they watched him cut other people up just so he wouldn't get stuck in traffic. Therefore I've said I'm not agreeing 50/50 whatsoever, I'm not admitting to something that's not my fault, I shouldn't be punished for his awful driving. Where's the justice in that?
Regardless, lost as to why Chaucer have ignored a statement and said they never received it...
Spoke to MY case handler, she said that they'd of agreed a split if I didn't have any witnesses, but since I do, there's no way they'll be admitting liability. Good stuff.
They claim the letter they sent was unclear so they're not sure if they've issued a summons or not, on top of this, Admiral have only contacted 1 independent witness, not two... So they've now asked my other witness for his statement. Great.
Secondly, my other witness sent his statement to Chaucer on the 19th November. Chaucer are stating they never received the email, so he's sent a picture to me which I sent to Admiral of him emailing it them showing the time stamp as 19th November 2015. He's also now sent a statement to Admiral.
A handler, not my case handler nevertheless a handler, said it looks like it'll be a split decision. Both statements from INDEPENDENT witnesses say he came in to my lane trying to avoid traffic, and one also said they watched him cut other people up just so he wouldn't get stuck in traffic. Therefore I've said I'm not agreeing 50/50 whatsoever, I'm not admitting to something that's not my fault, I shouldn't be punished for his awful driving. Where's the justice in that?
Regardless, lost as to why Chaucer have ignored a statement and said they never received it...
Spoke to MY case handler, she said that they'd of agreed a split if I didn't have any witnesses, but since I do, there's no way they'll be admitting liability. Good stuff.
Edited by VISE on Friday 15th January 15:13
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff