Third party claiming against me after insurance settlement
Discussion
I'm after a bit of advice. I had an accident over a year ago (on my motorbike, filtering past stationery traffic, car in queue decides to turn into right hand side road to turn around, we collide).
I was insured fully comp and my bike was written off as Cat D, I got paid out. I then got a letter from the insurance company saying it had been settled with split liability. Also had a letter from legal team saying they were closing the case. That's fine, I thought it was over.
A year later I have received a county court letter saying the third party wants to recover some costs from me, as he says it was my fault, and he wants costs for repairs, insurance excess, court & solicitors fees. Total almost one thousand pounds. I assume he's been in touch with no win no fee solicitors or something. Also assume he was not fully comp, hence thinking he's out of pocket.
I have contacted my insurance company, they asked me to forward any correspondence to them and that they have instructed their legal team to defend. They also said I shouldn't respond to anything myself.
My question is should I respond to the county court letter saying I am defending, as I only have 14 days to do so (now less than a week left). I cannot get the insurance company to be totally clear on this point.
Thanks,
TT
I was insured fully comp and my bike was written off as Cat D, I got paid out. I then got a letter from the insurance company saying it had been settled with split liability. Also had a letter from legal team saying they were closing the case. That's fine, I thought it was over.
A year later I have received a county court letter saying the third party wants to recover some costs from me, as he says it was my fault, and he wants costs for repairs, insurance excess, court & solicitors fees. Total almost one thousand pounds. I assume he's been in touch with no win no fee solicitors or something. Also assume he was not fully comp, hence thinking he's out of pocket.
I have contacted my insurance company, they asked me to forward any correspondence to them and that they have instructed their legal team to defend. They also said I shouldn't respond to anything myself.
My question is should I respond to the county court letter saying I am defending, as I only have 14 days to do so (now less than a week left). I cannot get the insurance company to be totally clear on this point.
Thanks,
TT
No, send it to your insurer and let them deal with it. As the claim was settled on split liability (50/50 I assume) then you (your insurance company in effect) are responsible for half of his losses. Just as his insurers were responsible for half of yours. Assume you got half your excess back off his insurers. If not, write to them to get it, after discussing with your insurer.
Thanks WillG, that's a good idea.
Catman, I thought split liability was normal in these circumstances. The annoying bit is that in the latest letter it says that I "moved across the claimant's path". I was obviously just trying to go in a straight line.
They also said that Mr XX XX was the owner and driver of the car. Whereas in fact, Mrs YY YY (different surname) was driving the car and there was no male in the car at all.
Catman, I thought split liability was normal in these circumstances. The annoying bit is that in the latest letter it says that I "moved across the claimant's path". I was obviously just trying to go in a straight line.
They also said that Mr XX XX was the owner and driver of the car. Whereas in fact, Mrs YY YY (different surname) was driving the car and there was no male in the car at all.
catman said:
I don't have much to add, except my surprise that split liability was accepted by your Insurers.
Tim
Call me cynical, but isn't this the way things are going? Insurers start at 50:50 by default. Both pay out the same on average over a large number of cases, but with two people at fault instead of one, both insurers end up with a larger number of customers with claim history, and thus higher premiums overall.Tim
Why would your insurance company want to defend you? It costs them more time and money to prove no-fault, and they don't get to bump your premium (as much) next year. It only works in their favour if they win more than they lose compared to the next insurance company, which over time they won't. Far better to just have a wink-nudge (probably unspoken, certainly unwritten) agreement across the industry to start at a 50:50 position every time and only move from that position if one client complains so hard it makes their life difficult.
TartanPaint said:
catman said:
I don't have much to add, except my surprise that split liability was accepted by your Insurers.
Tim
Call me cynical, but isn't this the way things are going? Insurers start at 50:50 by default. Both pay out the same on average over a large number of cases, but with two people at fault instead of one, both insurers end up with a larger number of customers with claim history, and thus higher premiums overall.Tim
Why would your insurance company want to defend you? It costs them more time and money to prove no-fault, and they don't get to bump your premium (as much) next year. It only works in their favour if they win more than they lose compared to the next insurance company, which over time they won't. Far better to just have a wink-nudge (probably unspoken, certainly unwritten) agreement across the industry to start at a 50:50 position every time and only move from that position if one client complains so hard it makes their life difficult.
The vast majority of claims are settled 100% in someone's favour. Because most claims are 100% one party's fault. Every day, thousands of people are hit whilst stationary, or hit in rear, or they hit someone else whilst parking, or they run up the back of someone, etc. Are you suggesting these claims are settled 50/50?
Complete nonsense.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What a load of old tripe.
The vast majority of claims are settled 100% in someone's favour. Because most claims are 100% one party's fault. Every day, thousands of people are hit whilst stationary, or hit in rear, or they hit someone else whilst parking, or they run up the back of someone, etc. Are you suggesting these claims are settled 50/50?
Complete nonsense.
Nope, because in those examples the non-moving party would kick up a fuss if they were found 50% liable.The vast majority of claims are settled 100% in someone's favour. Because most claims are 100% one party's fault. Every day, thousands of people are hit whilst stationary, or hit in rear, or they hit someone else whilst parking, or they run up the back of someone, etc. Are you suggesting these claims are settled 50/50?
Complete nonsense.
But 50/50 seems to be default for any incidents where both vehicles are moving, or cannot be proven to be stationary.
boyse7en said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What a load of old tripe.
The vast majority of claims are settled 100% in someone's favour. Because most claims are 100% one party's fault. Every day, thousands of people are hit whilst stationary, or hit in rear, or they hit someone else whilst parking, or they run up the back of someone, etc. Are you suggesting these claims are settled 50/50?
Complete nonsense.
Nope, because in those examples the non-moving party would kick up a fuss if they were found 50% liable.The vast majority of claims are settled 100% in someone's favour. Because most claims are 100% one party's fault. Every day, thousands of people are hit whilst stationary, or hit in rear, or they hit someone else whilst parking, or they run up the back of someone, etc. Are you suggesting these claims are settled 50/50?
Complete nonsense.
But 50/50 seems to be default for any incidents where both vehicles are moving, or cannot be proven to be stationary.
If you have two parties each blaming each (one person's word against another & no independent evidence) then a split liability with two moving vehicles is a likely outcome.
It's also a likely cause. We exist in a spirit of co-operation & should be looking out for each other's potential failings/covering for them. Too often people asserting what they perceive as 'their right' results in collisions that were preventable (i.e. one's error & one's bloody mindedness). We have a duty to avoid collisions where possible & that's often thrown out when asserting this perceived 'right'.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TartanPaint said:
catman said:
I don't have much to add, except my surprise that split liability was accepted by your Insurers.
Tim
Call me cynical, but isn't this the way things are going? Insurers start at 50:50 by default. Both pay out the same on average over a large number of cases, but with two people at fault instead of one, both insurers end up with a larger number of customers with claim history, and thus higher premiums overall.Tim
Why would your insurance company want to defend you? It costs them more time and money to prove no-fault, and they don't get to bump your premium (as much) next year. It only works in their favour if they win more than they lose compared to the next insurance company, which over time they won't. Far better to just have a wink-nudge (probably unspoken, certainly unwritten) agreement across the industry to start at a 50:50 position every time and only move from that position if one client complains so hard it makes their life difficult.
The vast majority of claims are settled 100% in someone's favour. Because most claims are 100% one party's fault. Every day, thousands of people are hit whilst stationary, or hit in rear, or they hit someone else whilst parking, or they run up the back of someone, etc. Are you suggesting these claims are settled 50/50?
Complete nonsense.
Obviously it need collaboration, but I don't think it's too paranoid to assume that on some scale this is happening.
TartanPaint said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TartanPaint said:
catman said:
I don't have much to add, except my surprise that split liability was accepted by your Insurers.
Tim
Call me cynical, but isn't this the way things are going? Insurers start at 50:50 by default. Both pay out the same on average over a large number of cases, but with two people at fault instead of one, both insurers end up with a larger number of customers with claim history, and thus higher premiums overall.Tim
Why would your insurance company want to defend you? It costs them more time and money to prove no-fault, and they don't get to bump your premium (as much) next year. It only works in their favour if they win more than they lose compared to the next insurance company, which over time they won't. Far better to just have a wink-nudge (probably unspoken, certainly unwritten) agreement across the industry to start at a 50:50 position every time and only move from that position if one client complains so hard it makes their life difficult.
The vast majority of claims are settled 100% in someone's favour. Because most claims are 100% one party's fault. Every day, thousands of people are hit whilst stationary, or hit in rear, or they hit someone else whilst parking, or they run up the back of someone, etc. Are you suggesting these claims are settled 50/50?
Complete nonsense.
Obviously it need collaboration, but I don't think it's too paranoid to assume that on some scale this is happening.
Tinfoil hattery at its finest.
TartanPaint said:
No, I'm suggesting that wherever there is doubt, it's only worth fighting the other team if they don't put up a fight. If they do, it's going to cost more time and effort than its worth. So what if all the teams in the league just agree not to fight, and then everyone wins with higher premiums?
Obviously it need collaboration, but I don't think it's too paranoid to assume that on some scale this is happening.
Your suggestion is that an insurance company will pay out half the costs of an accident, on the off chance that a customer stays with them for the next few years so that they can recoup a bit of their costs. Obviously it need collaboration, but I don't think it's too paranoid to assume that on some scale this is happening.
What about the regulator and their oversight of the industry, do you think they'd spot it?
There are some serious consequences for collusion on pricing and practice in this country which can cost companies huge percentages of their worldwide annual turnover. Is it worth it for a few hundred quid?
TartanPaint said:
Maybe. But I keep hearing of bang-to-rights 100% fault cases ending up 50:50,
But you only hear 1 side of the story. The other bloke has a completely different version.Claims that are settled 50/50 are done so because there's a dispute and no independent evidence. If it went to court, it would be settled 50/50.
There's no conspiracy or duck.
I've heard of cases where liability is admitted by one side, but the insurers on both sides insist on 50:50. I know of a case ongoing with dashcam evidence. Still neither insurer will move from 50:50. Coupled with the fact that it's in their financial interest to do so and I'm wondering why. My duck is the best I can come up with.
Of course I could be wrong, you don't need to tell me that. I wouldn't mind seeing a few facts or counter-arguments chucked in though...
Of course I could be wrong, you don't need to tell me that. I wouldn't mind seeing a few facts or counter-arguments chucked in though...
TartanPaint said:
I've heard of cases where liability is admitted by one side, but the insurers on both sides insist on 50:50. I know of a case ongoing with dashcam evidence. Still neither insurer will move from 50:50. Coupled with the fact that it's in their financial interest to do so and I'm wondering why. My duck is the best I can come up with.
Of course I could be wrong, you don't need to tell me that. I wouldn't mind seeing a few facts or counter-arguments chucked in though...
How is it in their interests financially?Of course I could be wrong, you don't need to tell me that. I wouldn't mind seeing a few facts or counter-arguments chucked in though...
In the example above, if I'm the insurance company where the other side is admitting liability, then my costs would be zero. Why would I be fighting tomoay half the costs? It makes no sense. There is no value in me shelling out thousands to possibly recoup a few hundred in additional premiums and that assumes the customer doesn't go to another insider at renewal.
Gavia said:
How is it in their interests financially?
In the example above, if I'm the insurance company where the other side is admitting liability, then my costs would be zero. Why would I be fighting tomoay half the costs? It makes no sense. There is no value in me shelling out thousands to possibly recoup a few hundred in additional premiums and that assumes the customer doesn't go to another insider at renewal.
Consider the case where both drivers are insured by the same company, or different brands with the same underwriter.In the example above, if I'm the insurance company where the other side is admitting liability, then my costs would be zero. Why would I be fighting tomoay half the costs? It makes no sense. There is no value in me shelling out thousands to possibly recoup a few hundred in additional premiums and that assumes the customer doesn't go to another insider at renewal.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff