Insurance question following accident
Discussion
Hoping that someone with more insurance knowledge can assist me please.
Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
MikeA3 said:
Hoping that someone with more insurance knowledge can assist me please.
Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
You'd be better getting proper legal advice, than asking here.Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
It isn't a done deal that you are liable just because you run into the back of somebody. Each case rests on it's own facts.
https://www.motorcyclelawscotland.co.uk/why-choose...
KungFuPanda said:
Unfortunately I think it is a done deal that you’re 100% liable for colliding with the vehicle in front.
You should have kept a safe braking distance between yourself and the car in front. You won’t be able to claim anything from the car that pulled into your lane.
I'd agree with that. He may have been driving carelessly, but that wasn't the proximate cause (look up the definition) of your accident. There was another active, intervening and efficient cause that came after his careless driving, and that was your failure to keep a safe distance from the car in front. You should have kept a safe braking distance between yourself and the car in front. You won’t be able to claim anything from the car that pulled into your lane.
As above, get some advice.
whilst I agree you are unlikely to get anywhere with a claim for your bike damage, a personal injury where another parties actions may be seen to be even partially responsible is a different matter. The fact that he/she is also being prosecuted won't do your case any harm either.
OP there are plenty of specialist bike injury lawyers out there who are far better to get advice from than an internet forum
whilst I agree you are unlikely to get anywhere with a claim for your bike damage, a personal injury where another parties actions may be seen to be even partially responsible is a different matter. The fact that he/she is also being prosecuted won't do your case any harm either.
OP there are plenty of specialist bike injury lawyers out there who are far better to get advice from than an internet forum
MikeA3 said:
Hoping that someone with more insurance knowledge can assist me please.
Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
That happened to me and the driver who pulled out causing the vehicle in front of me to do an emergency stop was held 50% liable we both had a claim made on our insurance. The old adage that you are too close so it's all your fault did not apply.Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
The guy who pulled out got prosecuted for due care. I was reported by police at the time but not prosecuted.
Get some free legal advice don't go by what is said on here.
kestral said:
MikeA3 said:
Hoping that someone with more insurance knowledge can assist me please.
Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
That happened to me and the driver who pulled out causing the vehicle in front of me to do an emergency stop was held 50% liable we both had a claim made on our insurance. The old adage that you are too close so it's all your fault did not apply.Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
Devils advocate - not trying to pick sides.........
There seems to be some facts missing here. Why is the person who pulled out facing court for due care when the only collision mentioned happened because you were travelling too close? Surely if you hadn't been there everybody would have just got on with their day? On the facts provided then you should be appearing at court too out of fairness to all concerned?
There seems to be some facts missing here. Why is the person who pulled out facing court for due care when the only collision mentioned happened because you were travelling too close? Surely if you hadn't been there everybody would have just got on with their day? On the facts provided then you should be appearing at court too out of fairness to all concerned?
So if I understand this correctly anyone who pulls out In front of another car could get a conviction for dangerous driving, even if there is no accident.
If so, my dashcam could fully supply a court with work from now until I retire. There must be more to the oncoming cars conviction than that.
If so, my dashcam could fully supply a court with work from now until I retire. There must be more to the oncoming cars conviction than that.
julian64 said:
So if I understand this correctly anyone who pulls out In front of another car could get a conviction for dangerous driving, even if there is no accident.
If so, my dashcam could fully supply a court with work from now until I retire. There must be more to the oncoming cars conviction than that.
That’s not what was said, no one said anyone who pulls out or mentioned dangerous driving. There have been plenty of cases where the actions of a third party have contributed 100% to an accident without any collision taking place. Imagine swerving to avoid a vehicle pulling out and hitting another oncoming one head onIf so, my dashcam could fully supply a court with work from now until I retire. There must be more to the oncoming cars conviction than that.
MikeA3 said:
Hoping that someone with more insurance knowledge can assist me please.
Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
My ex FIL was in a situation where he was driving the vehicle you ran into. He had let the vehicle come the other way (South) on his side of the carridgeway as if he had carried on, he would have then got to a point on his side of the carridgeway (North) was blocked by the traffic coming South. The vehicle coming South my FIL though as it was indicating right was going to turn into the junction he'd flashed him to. It turned out he wasn't turning and was just progressing along the road. Any junctions in your case the car the 'pulled out' could have been going into? The Southbound car did get charged but the case fell apart when they stated FIL had flashed them and indicated for them to come on. Which he admitted in court. Some background - I had an accident on my motorbike back in June when I went into the back of a car performing an emergency stop in front of me on a clear road. I fully appreciate that I should have been able to stop in time etc however in wet conditions 4 x tyres and ABS will always trump 2 without. Whilst a relatively low speed accident it was enough to write my bike off and I'm also the proud new owner of a metal plate in my wrist... triffic.
Anyway - at present the fault is fully against me and that's ok however the reason the car in front performed her emergency stop was due to an oncoming car pulling out of stationary traffic into our lane. The driver of the oncoming car is being charged with driving without due car and attention and he has a court date early next year.
Assuming he's convicted is there likely to be any reduction in my own claim i.e would it drop from a fault claim to 50/50 even though I didn't hit him?
Any advice would be appreciated and thanks in advance.
Mike
The biker that hit FIL then spent a lot of money taking FIL to court (Norn Ireland) after his insurance said he (FIL) was 100% not at fault (this was 1990 before injury lawyers etc). FIL claimed back his losses for time at court etc from the biker (whom only had third party). The whole basis, irrespective of what happened "in front" was that the biker failed to maintain a safe distance to stop.
So don't assume there wasn't a good reason the vehicle in front of you was letting others through, where I work on one industrial estate at kicking out time both lanes have to give way out of their "right of way" due to obstructions (gully works at the mo and lorries parked up on their breaks) otherwise the place would gridlock.
Hope you get better though........I got knocked off by a fellow biker that couldn't stop because he drove too close and the tunc did a runner. Copper that examined my helmet reckoned another 2 - 3 mm deformation where the helmet broke and I was looking at serious mental injury.
Edited by StanleyT on Tuesday 17th December 20:57
Thanks for all the replies and advice - it's appreciated. The Scottish motorcycle lawyers website especially made for interesting reading.
For those asking for some more context, both the car I hit and I were turning left at a traffic light controlled crossroads (Malden Rushett Junction for anyone that knows it). As we'd both turned left our side of the road is clear so we both began to accelerate up to 30mph which is the limit there. The daft thing is I remember thinking how good the exhaust note sounded on her car as she accelerated (well this is PH after all).
The other side of the carriageway is single lane and was bumper to bumper traffic leading up to the traffic lights at the crossroads, the is a filter lane to turn right on a separate light (the direction the lady and I had just come from) and it appears the driver of the other vehicle has got bored waiting in the queue of traffic so has pulled out into our lane to try and get into this filter lane some 50m further up. As he's pulled into our lane it's forced the lady in front of me to do an emergency stop in order to avoid a head on collision, I've tried (albeit failed) to do the same and did manage to stand the bike almost on it's nose I braked so hard.
The irony of all of this is that the sequence of the lights means he could have stayed exactly where he was and would have got to the filter lane at the junction faster as the next change would have allowed the queue of traffic he was in to move.... oh well, hindsight's a wonderful thing.
My insurers have asked that I keep them informed of the outcome, seems like they'll approach the chaps insurance company to see if they can negotiate a 50/50 depending on what happens at court.
Thanks again
Mike
For those asking for some more context, both the car I hit and I were turning left at a traffic light controlled crossroads (Malden Rushett Junction for anyone that knows it). As we'd both turned left our side of the road is clear so we both began to accelerate up to 30mph which is the limit there. The daft thing is I remember thinking how good the exhaust note sounded on her car as she accelerated (well this is PH after all).
The other side of the carriageway is single lane and was bumper to bumper traffic leading up to the traffic lights at the crossroads, the is a filter lane to turn right on a separate light (the direction the lady and I had just come from) and it appears the driver of the other vehicle has got bored waiting in the queue of traffic so has pulled out into our lane to try and get into this filter lane some 50m further up. As he's pulled into our lane it's forced the lady in front of me to do an emergency stop in order to avoid a head on collision, I've tried (albeit failed) to do the same and did manage to stand the bike almost on it's nose I braked so hard.
The irony of all of this is that the sequence of the lights means he could have stayed exactly where he was and would have got to the filter lane at the junction faster as the next change would have allowed the queue of traffic he was in to move.... oh well, hindsight's a wonderful thing.
My insurers have asked that I keep them informed of the outcome, seems like they'll approach the chaps insurance company to see if they can negotiate a 50/50 depending on what happens at court.
Thanks again
Mike
Your insurers have asked you to keep them informed because they aren't going to waste their own time pursuing the guy who made the dodgy manoeuvre for all or half of their outlay because they know they're going to be onto a loser. If they considered that there was even a 50% chance of recovering their outlay, they'd do it off their own backs.
As other's have suggested, go to a specialist motorcycle lawyer. I doubt they'll take the claim on as it has no reasonable prospects of success. Those no win no fee firms will not take on a claim where they won't win and they won't get paid.
As other's have suggested, go to a specialist motorcycle lawyer. I doubt they'll take the claim on as it has no reasonable prospects of success. Those no win no fee firms will not take on a claim where they won't win and they won't get paid.
MikeA3 said:
Thanks for all the replies and advice - it's appreciated. The Scottish motorcycle lawyers website especially made for interesting reading.
For those asking for some more context, both the car I hit and I were turning left at a traffic light controlled crossroads (Malden Rushett Junction for anyone that knows it). As we'd both turned left our side of the road is clear so we both began to accelerate up to 30mph which is the limit there. The daft thing is I remember thinking how good the exhaust note sounded on her car as she accelerated (well this is PH after all).
The other side of the carriageway is single lane and was bumper to bumper traffic leading up to the traffic lights at the crossroads, the is a filter lane to turn right on a separate light (the direction the lady and I had just come from) and it appears the driver of the other vehicle has got bored waiting in the queue of traffic so has pulled out into our lane to try and get into this filter lane some 50m further up. As he's pulled into our lane it's forced the lady in front of me to do an emergency stop in order to avoid a head on collision, I've tried (albeit failed) to do the same and did manage to stand the bike almost on it's nose I braked so hard.
The irony of all of this is that the sequence of the lights means he could have stayed exactly where he was and would have got to the filter lane at the junction faster as the next change would have allowed the queue of traffic he was in to move.... oh well, hindsight's a wonderful thing.
My insurers have asked that I keep them informed of the outcome, seems like they'll approach the chaps insurance company to see if they can negotiate a 50/50 depending on what happens at court.
Thanks again
Mike
Yep......good luck with that. I would have reported you both for due care. You must have had a biker bobby dealing! For those asking for some more context, both the car I hit and I were turning left at a traffic light controlled crossroads (Malden Rushett Junction for anyone that knows it). As we'd both turned left our side of the road is clear so we both began to accelerate up to 30mph which is the limit there. The daft thing is I remember thinking how good the exhaust note sounded on her car as she accelerated (well this is PH after all).
The other side of the carriageway is single lane and was bumper to bumper traffic leading up to the traffic lights at the crossroads, the is a filter lane to turn right on a separate light (the direction the lady and I had just come from) and it appears the driver of the other vehicle has got bored waiting in the queue of traffic so has pulled out into our lane to try and get into this filter lane some 50m further up. As he's pulled into our lane it's forced the lady in front of me to do an emergency stop in order to avoid a head on collision, I've tried (albeit failed) to do the same and did manage to stand the bike almost on it's nose I braked so hard.
The irony of all of this is that the sequence of the lights means he could have stayed exactly where he was and would have got to the filter lane at the junction faster as the next change would have allowed the queue of traffic he was in to move.... oh well, hindsight's a wonderful thing.
My insurers have asked that I keep them informed of the outcome, seems like they'll approach the chaps insurance company to see if they can negotiate a 50/50 depending on what happens at court.
Thanks again
Mike
MikeA3 said:
Thanks for all the replies and advice - it's appreciated. The Scottish motorcycle lawyers website especially made for interesting reading.
For those asking for some more context, both the car I hit and I were turning left at a traffic light controlled crossroads (Malden Rushett Junction for anyone that knows it). As we'd both turned left our side of the road is clear so we both began to accelerate up to 30mph which is the limit there. The daft thing is I remember thinking how good the exhaust note sounded on her car as she accelerated (well this is PH after all).
The other side of the carriageway is single lane and was bumper to bumper traffic leading up to the traffic lights at the crossroads, the is a filter lane to turn right on a separate light (the direction the lady and I had just come from) and it appears the driver of the other vehicle has got bored waiting in the queue of traffic so has pulled out into our lane to try and get into this filter lane some 50m further up. As he's pulled into our lane it's forced the lady in front of me to do an emergency stop in order to avoid a head on collision, I've tried (albeit failed) to do the same and did manage to stand the bike almost on it's nose I braked so hard.
The irony of all of this is that the sequence of the lights means he could have stayed exactly where he was and would have got to the filter lane at the junction faster as the next change would have allowed the queue of traffic he was in to move.... oh well, hindsight's a wonderful thing.
My insurers have asked that I keep them informed of the outcome, seems like they'll approach the chaps insurance company to see if they can negotiate a 50/50 depending on what happens at court.
Thanks again
Mike
Don't lose sight of making a separate personal injury claim though, even if you were found to be 50% responsible for your injuries the pay out could still more than cover all your other losses and in my experience have a much greater chance of success. A moderate to severe fracture of the wrist needing surgery to fix could be up to 35K depending on long term prognosisFor those asking for some more context, both the car I hit and I were turning left at a traffic light controlled crossroads (Malden Rushett Junction for anyone that knows it). As we'd both turned left our side of the road is clear so we both began to accelerate up to 30mph which is the limit there. The daft thing is I remember thinking how good the exhaust note sounded on her car as she accelerated (well this is PH after all).
The other side of the carriageway is single lane and was bumper to bumper traffic leading up to the traffic lights at the crossroads, the is a filter lane to turn right on a separate light (the direction the lady and I had just come from) and it appears the driver of the other vehicle has got bored waiting in the queue of traffic so has pulled out into our lane to try and get into this filter lane some 50m further up. As he's pulled into our lane it's forced the lady in front of me to do an emergency stop in order to avoid a head on collision, I've tried (albeit failed) to do the same and did manage to stand the bike almost on it's nose I braked so hard.
The irony of all of this is that the sequence of the lights means he could have stayed exactly where he was and would have got to the filter lane at the junction faster as the next change would have allowed the queue of traffic he was in to move.... oh well, hindsight's a wonderful thing.
My insurers have asked that I keep them informed of the outcome, seems like they'll approach the chaps insurance company to see if they can negotiate a 50/50 depending on what happens at court.
Thanks again
Mike
Why are people suggesting that if the OP presents a claim for personal injury, he’s more likely to succeed in a claim or get 50% of his claim paid? It’s absolute rubbish.
The third party insurer are going to defend any claim with the same voracity regardless as to whether it’s just a claim for vehicle damage or a full personal injury claim. I’m actually fact, the higher value the claim that’s presented, the harder they’ll fight liability in order to avoid a payout.
The third party insurer are going to defend any claim with the same voracity regardless as to whether it’s just a claim for vehicle damage or a full personal injury claim. I’m actually fact, the higher value the claim that’s presented, the harder they’ll fight liability in order to avoid a payout.
KungFuPanda said:
Why are people suggesting that if the OP presents a claim for personal injury, he’s more likely to succeed in a claim or get 50% of his claim paid? It’s absolute rubbish.
The third party insurer are going to defend any claim with the same voracity regardless as to whether it’s just a claim for vehicle damage or a full personal injury claim. I’m actually fact, the higher value the claim that’s presented, the harder they’ll fight liability in order to avoid a payout.
He is best served getting & qualified legal opinion on his particular set of full circumstances, rather than any advice here.The third party insurer are going to defend any claim with the same voracity regardless as to whether it’s just a claim for vehicle damage or a full personal injury claim. I’m actually fact, the higher value the claim that’s presented, the harder they’ll fight liability in order to avoid a payout.
Each case rests on it's own facts.
KungFuPanda said:
Why are people suggesting that if the OP presents a claim for personal injury, he’s more likely to succeed in a claim or get 50% of his claim paid? It’s absolute rubbish.
The third party insurer are going to defend any claim with the same voracity regardless as to whether it’s just a claim for vehicle damage or a full personal injury claim. I’m actually fact, the higher value the claim that’s presented, the harder they’ll fight liability in order to avoid a payout.
Did you just pull all that out of thin air or base it on experience or a professional opinion. the 'absolute rubbish' part desrcibes your post perfectly. I can assure you the parameters for liabilitly in a personal injury claim are applied in a vastly different way to that used in apportioning blame for RTA collision damage. It's also a fact that small PI claims are actually much less likely to be defended robustly because it's a no win for the ins co, it costs far less to give a claimant 10k and tell them to Foxtrot Oscar than it would to defend it and win in court, that's what the ambulance chasing industry we all now have to live with relies on. OP as I said earlier and above by VH seek some proffesional advice.The third party insurer are going to defend any claim with the same voracity regardless as to whether it’s just a claim for vehicle damage or a full personal injury claim. I’m actually fact, the higher value the claim that’s presented, the harder they’ll fight liability in order to avoid a payout.
Liability and quantum are both different aspects of a claim and are both assessed independently of each other. Why do you think there are sometimes split trials where liability is decided at one hearing to decide liability and then once that has been resolved, directions are then given for the parties to work towards a final hearing to determine the level of damages to be awarded subject to the earlier liability finding.
Whether the RTA claim is for a smashed front bumper or a PI claim, the Defendant insurer are still going to defend it if they believe their client is not at fault.
Why would it be cheaper to pay someone £10k for a personal injury claim plus their solicitors costs rather than defend it to trial and if successful, the Defendants insurers won’t have to pay the £10k or the solicitors costs? With the introduction of QOCS, Defendants maybe be less likely to run things to trial as costs no longer follow the event but they will still defend claims as if they didn’t, every single claim for PI would be paid out without question!
I’d still maintain that presenting a PI claim will not pressure any third party insurer into admitting liability unnecessarily.
Whether the RTA claim is for a smashed front bumper or a PI claim, the Defendant insurer are still going to defend it if they believe their client is not at fault.
Why would it be cheaper to pay someone £10k for a personal injury claim plus their solicitors costs rather than defend it to trial and if successful, the Defendants insurers won’t have to pay the £10k or the solicitors costs? With the introduction of QOCS, Defendants maybe be less likely to run things to trial as costs no longer follow the event but they will still defend claims as if they didn’t, every single claim for PI would be paid out without question!
I’d still maintain that presenting a PI claim will not pressure any third party insurer into admitting liability unnecessarily.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff