Car Written Off... Insurance Minefield...
Discussion
Advice appreciated... (apologies for the long and dull post).
Earlier this week, the OH wrote her car off due to a three-car accident that was essentially caused by car 1 performing some kind of failed "handbrake turn" into a side road and then getting hit by car 2 which was then hit by car 3 (my OH's car).
Basically, to cut a long story short, this is what we've done so far:
On the day of the crash - paramedics and police attended - car 2's driver gave a statement, my OH gave a statement, the attending officer wanted to speak to car 1's driver but they had driven off. Policeman later found the car, but no drivers to be found, so put a notice on it. Policeman then told us that he was interested in speaking to Car 1's driver, to pursue the issue of driving without due care and attention, as all statements pointed to the "handbrake turn" as the root cause of the shunts.
On the day of the crash - we swapped details with car 2 and both ourselves and car 2's driver informed our insurers. Our insurers also told us that their database was showing car 1 as uninsured.
Our insurers have told us they consider the collision between my OH's car and car 2 to be 100% her fault. But we were prepared for this, as we both feel that being unable to stop in the space seen to be clear, means we have to take that on the chin. Which is frustrating, but fair, after all, the chap in front couldn't help his position either.
Where we are at now:
Our insurers initially said they would like to communicate with car 2's insurers, as the police report and their claim - along with our statement - all point to car 1 as doing something very stupid, to set off the chain of events. We are still waiting for contact from the police.
Our car is written off and we have been offered a fair price for it. We don't want to buy it back, as the OH doesn't want to drive it again, she was very shaken up by it all.
What I would like some advice with >>>
Our insurers have gone a bit quiet now, having originally said they would like to consider pursuing the driver of car 1 in light of the situation. They even said there was a way to do this if he was uninsured, but no further info on this has been forthcoming. We've got the offer now for the car, it's close to what we think is market value, so we aren't too unhappy with it... but will our acceptance also "seal up" the acceptance of 100% fault?
If we accept things as they are, will we still be able to explore other options regarding the idiot who caused it all?
We're quite keen to move on, to be honest, but neither I nor the OH have much experience of this process.
Anyone got any insight?
Earlier this week, the OH wrote her car off due to a three-car accident that was essentially caused by car 1 performing some kind of failed "handbrake turn" into a side road and then getting hit by car 2 which was then hit by car 3 (my OH's car).
Basically, to cut a long story short, this is what we've done so far:
On the day of the crash - paramedics and police attended - car 2's driver gave a statement, my OH gave a statement, the attending officer wanted to speak to car 1's driver but they had driven off. Policeman later found the car, but no drivers to be found, so put a notice on it. Policeman then told us that he was interested in speaking to Car 1's driver, to pursue the issue of driving without due care and attention, as all statements pointed to the "handbrake turn" as the root cause of the shunts.
On the day of the crash - we swapped details with car 2 and both ourselves and car 2's driver informed our insurers. Our insurers also told us that their database was showing car 1 as uninsured.
Our insurers have told us they consider the collision between my OH's car and car 2 to be 100% her fault. But we were prepared for this, as we both feel that being unable to stop in the space seen to be clear, means we have to take that on the chin. Which is frustrating, but fair, after all, the chap in front couldn't help his position either.
Where we are at now:
Our insurers initially said they would like to communicate with car 2's insurers, as the police report and their claim - along with our statement - all point to car 1 as doing something very stupid, to set off the chain of events. We are still waiting for contact from the police.
Our car is written off and we have been offered a fair price for it. We don't want to buy it back, as the OH doesn't want to drive it again, she was very shaken up by it all.
What I would like some advice with >>>
Our insurers have gone a bit quiet now, having originally said they would like to consider pursuing the driver of car 1 in light of the situation. They even said there was a way to do this if he was uninsured, but no further info on this has been forthcoming. We've got the offer now for the car, it's close to what we think is market value, so we aren't too unhappy with it... but will our acceptance also "seal up" the acceptance of 100% fault?
If we accept things as they are, will we still be able to explore other options regarding the idiot who caused it all?
We're quite keen to move on, to be honest, but neither I nor the OH have much experience of this process.
Anyone got any insight?
Edited by Sterillium on Saturday 2nd September 14:22
Edited by Sterillium on Saturday 2nd September 22:07
Sterillium said:
Our insurers initially said they would like to communicate with car 2's insurers, as the police report and their claim - along with our statement - all point to car 1 as doing something very stupid, to set off the chain of events.
Insurance claims are settled on the basis of proximate cause. The definition of proximate cause is:Active, direct, and efficient cause of loss in insurance that sets in motion an unbroken chain of events which bring about damage, destruction, or injury without the intervention of a new and independent force.
The chain of events is only relevant if it was without the intervention of a new and independent force. But in this case there was an intervention of a new and independent force, as you've admitted. That was your wife driving too fast/close to the guy in front. So regardless of driver 1 acting the fool, that wasn't the cause of your wife's accident. Your wife was at fault for her accident.
IMHO.
Sterillium said:
Pica-Pica said:
You lost me when you said car3 (OH), then you said car3 driver had driven off!
D'oh... I meant car 1... 
Agreed.
Main concern was that somehow accepting the value would trigger a cessation in any exploration of the lead car. Although I suspect that's what the insurers would prefer to do anyway... and closing the matter is far more appealing that pointlessly prolonging it. I imagine they're currently not hugely thrilled to have been caught with no insurance.
Sterillium said:
Policeman then told us that he was interested in speaking to Car 1's driver, to pursue the issue of driving without due care and attention, as all statements pointed to the "handbrake turn" as the root cause of the shunts.
]
The policeman was "interested" in speaking to speak to the person driving an uninsured car, recklessly, and leaving the scene of an accident. Well that's nice to know. ]
I'm sure there are some armed robbers he wouldn't mind having a 'quiet word' with and some serious fraudsters with whom he'd like a 'cosy chat' too. He sounds like a real 'go getter'........
OddCat said:
Sterillium said:
Policeman then told us that he was interested in speaking to Car 1's driver, to pursue the issue of driving without due care and attention, as all statements pointed to the "handbrake turn" as the root cause of the shunts.
]
The policeman was "interested" in speaking to speak to the person driving an uninsured car, recklessly, and leaving the scene of an accident. Well that's nice to know. ]
I'm sure there are some armed robbers he wouldn't mind having a 'quiet word' with and some serious fraudsters with whom he'd like a 'cosy chat' too. He sounds like a real 'go getter'........
But as above, we'll just move on.
I'm intrigued by the outcome of this. While handbrake turning is undoubtedly a stupid thing to do on a public road with other cars around, do the impacts not point to lack of awareness/preparation or following too closely?
Keen to see how/where blame is apportioned for this by the insurers. Is it possible for the driver of Car 1 to get a 'due care and attention' sanction, but for Cars 2 & 3 to still foot the fault for the collisions?
Keen to see how/where blame is apportioned for this by the insurers. Is it possible for the driver of Car 1 to get a 'due care and attention' sanction, but for Cars 2 & 3 to still foot the fault for the collisions?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
C70R said:
Is it possible for the driver of Car 1 to get a 'due care and attention' sanction, but for Cars 2 & 3 to still foot the fault for the collisions?
Yes, that's perfectly possible. You can be convicted for numerous offences that come to light following a non fault claim. C70R said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
C70R said:
Is it possible for the driver of Car 1 to get a 'due care and attention' sanction, but for Cars 2 & 3 to still foot the fault for the collisions?
Yes, that's perfectly possible. You can be convicted for numerous offences that come to light following a non fault claim. 
t, but drivers 2 and 3 seem to me to be responsible for the collisions. Under proximate cause, as I explained earleir. Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff