Insurance 50/50 can I refuse?
Discussion
Back ground MRS400 got hit on Friday in the snow.
She wa travelling down hill a 7.5t recovery truck has come towards her on the wrong side of the road, so she's stopped to let him up past as such.
As he's passed the back end has come out and damaged the side of the car.
Spoke to insurance yesterday as to regards liability etc and she's saying there are quite alot of factors so it may go 50/50.
I'm far from happy of that's the case, so wondering of I have a right to refuse etc.
no dashcam footage and no witnesses.
I guess I'll have to suck it up if I cannot refuse it, just a ball ache and the costs.
Many thanks insurance of the replys.
Also MRS400 is having a bus pass for her birthday.
She wa travelling down hill a 7.5t recovery truck has come towards her on the wrong side of the road, so she's stopped to let him up past as such.
As he's passed the back end has come out and damaged the side of the car.
Spoke to insurance yesterday as to regards liability etc and she's saying there are quite alot of factors so it may go 50/50.
I'm far from happy of that's the case, so wondering of I have a right to refuse etc.
no dashcam footage and no witnesses.
I guess I'll have to suck it up if I cannot refuse it, just a ball ache and the costs.
Many thanks insurance of the replys.
Also MRS400 is having a bus pass for her birthday.
Edited by cossy400 on Tuesday 11th January 08:56
If she was stationary at the time then it should be 100% the other driver's fault. OTOH if the other driver claims that they were both moving and that she encroached into his space then with no witnesses it may well end up 50/50.
The person on the phone may not have been so much telling you that 50/50 was the likely outcome as just warning you that it was a possibility.
Ultimately though your insurance company has the right to settle the claim as they see fit - your contract with them gives them the right to do this, and it's their money, not yours, that they'll be paying out to the other party. If they do eventually want to offer a 50/50 settlement to the other driver then you can ask them not to, but can't insist that they don't.
The person on the phone may not have been so much telling you that 50/50 was the likely outcome as just warning you that it was a possibility.
Ultimately though your insurance company has the right to settle the claim as they see fit - your contract with them gives them the right to do this, and it's their money, not yours, that they'll be paying out to the other party. If they do eventually want to offer a 50/50 settlement to the other driver then you can ask them not to, but can't insist that they don't.
Aretnap said:
If she was stationary at the time then it should be 100% the other driver's fault. OTOH if the other driver claims that they were both moving and that she encroached into his space then with no witnesses it may well end up 50/50.
The person on the phone may not have been so much telling you that 50/50 was the likely outcome as just warning you that it was a possibility.
Ultimately though your insurance company has the right to settle the claim as they see fit - your contract with them gives them the right to do this, and it's their money, not yours, that they'll be paying out to the other party. If they do eventually want to offer a 50/50 settlement to the other driver then you can ask them not to, but can't insist that they don't.
She was stationary. The person on the phone may not have been so much telling you that 50/50 was the likely outcome as just warning you that it was a possibility.
Ultimately though your insurance company has the right to settle the claim as they see fit - your contract with them gives them the right to do this, and it's their money, not yours, that they'll be paying out to the other party. If they do eventually want to offer a 50/50 settlement to the other driver then you can ask them not to, but can't insist that they don't.
It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we ll bare a hell of alot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to there vehicle.
Like I say if I've got to suck it up I will it ll just be most annoying.
Aretnap said:
If she was stationary at the time then it should be 100% the other driver's fault. OTOH if the other driver claims that they were both moving and that she encroached into his space then with no witnesses it may well end up 50/50.
The person on the phone may not have been so much telling you that 50/50 was the likely outcome as just warning you that it was a possibility.
Ultimately though your insurance company has the right to settle the claim as they see fit - your contract with them gives them the right to do this, and it's their money, not yours, that they'll be paying out to the other party. If they do eventually want to offer a 50/50 settlement to the other driver then you can ask them not to, but can't insist that they don't.
She was stationary. The person on the phone may not have been so much telling you that 50/50 was the likely outcome as just warning you that it was a possibility.
Ultimately though your insurance company has the right to settle the claim as they see fit - your contract with them gives them the right to do this, and it's their money, not yours, that they'll be paying out to the other party. If they do eventually want to offer a 50/50 settlement to the other driver then you can ask them not to, but can't insist that they don't.
It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we ll bare a hell of alot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to there vehicle.
Like I say if I've got to suck it up I will it ll just be most annoying.
cossy400 said:
She was stationary.
Issue is if the other drivers account says differently then unless there is a witness or dashcam etc the insurers have no way to know who is telling the truth. From what you have said there is no way anyone here can fully comment as the insurer have said there are many factors.
You always have the right to make a complaint and follow that process through all the way but ultimately if there are two conflicting first hand accounts I’m not sure it would get you anywhere. Best to wait and see what happens and move from there.
Dingu said:
cossy400 said:
She was stationary.
Issue is if the other drivers account says differently then unless there is a witness or dashcam etc the insurers have no way to know who is telling the truth. From what you have said there is no way anyone here can fully comment as the insurer have said there are many factors.
You always have the right to make a complaint and follow that process through all the way but ultimately if there are two conflicting first hand accounts I’m not sure it would get you anywhere. Best to wait and see what happens and move from there.
will update when I get a answer.
cossy400 said:
Dingu said:
cossy400 said:
She was stationary.
Issue is if the other drivers account says differently then unless there is a witness or dashcam etc the insurers have no way to know who is telling the truth. From what you have said there is no way anyone here can fully comment as the insurer have said there are many factors.
You always have the right to make a complaint and follow that process through all the way but ultimately if there are two conflicting first hand accounts I’m not sure it would get you anywhere. Best to wait and see what happens and move from there.
will update when I get a answer.
We had a similar incident some years back with a delivery lorry from a well known 'superstore' who were delivering to a neighbour.
The truck side swiped my Wife who had stopped due to the narrow road, she was going to reverse away but the driver just carried on and took the side out of the car.
Driver denied liability and when I spoke with the store manager he was, in short, an arse about it claiming 50/50 and we then had to claim on our insurance for the damage (they had no noticeable damage), he even claimed he could use tachograph readings to prove they were stationary at the time of the incident (as if anyone knew the 'exact' time to the second?).
Worst of it was, it was my car and so the claim being in my name bumped up my other vehicle insurances too (other car, motorbikes etc.).
You would think that a business selling to the public would have a better attitude towards potential customers? and I doubt a claim on their insurance would have made much of a dent in their profits, the only loss they incurred was us never shopping there again which may well have been more than the insurance cost?
Unfortunately based on my experience, I doubt you'll get anywhere with it.
The truck side swiped my Wife who had stopped due to the narrow road, she was going to reverse away but the driver just carried on and took the side out of the car.
Driver denied liability and when I spoke with the store manager he was, in short, an arse about it claiming 50/50 and we then had to claim on our insurance for the damage (they had no noticeable damage), he even claimed he could use tachograph readings to prove they were stationary at the time of the incident (as if anyone knew the 'exact' time to the second?).
Worst of it was, it was my car and so the claim being in my name bumped up my other vehicle insurances too (other car, motorbikes etc.).
You would think that a business selling to the public would have a better attitude towards potential customers? and I doubt a claim on their insurance would have made much of a dent in their profits, the only loss they incurred was us never shopping there again which may well have been more than the insurance cost?
Unfortunately based on my experience, I doubt you'll get anywhere with it.
This is giving me the fear, as a local network and cable laying company's van swiped me off the road last Thursday, car written off, so I've had to claim from my policy and let them fight out liability.
The van was 2ft over the centreline when he hit me. He admitted liability. But country road, no witnesses, no phone signal. Now my insurer tells me they haven't admitted liability. If that's his word against mine, and he's the only one with a dash cam, I could even see it going completely against me as the damage to both vehicles could have been caused by me returning to my lane, just as easily as by him veering over into the side of me.
Is it really just a case of sit tight and let the insurer, who has no particular dog in the fight because investigation costs will quickly outstrip settlement figures, decide who's at fault?
The van was 2ft over the centreline when he hit me. He admitted liability. But country road, no witnesses, no phone signal. Now my insurer tells me they haven't admitted liability. If that's his word against mine, and he's the only one with a dash cam, I could even see it going completely against me as the damage to both vehicles could have been caused by me returning to my lane, just as easily as by him veering over into the side of me.
Is it really just a case of sit tight and let the insurer, who has no particular dog in the fight because investigation costs will quickly outstrip settlement figures, decide who's at fault?
cossy400 said:
She was stationary.
It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we ll bare a hell of alot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to there vehicle.
Like I say if I've got to suck it up I will it ll just be most annoying.
I don't understand how it's 50/50 if there is no damage to their vehicle. That amounts to you being 100% liable!It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we ll bare a hell of alot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to there vehicle.
Like I say if I've got to suck it up I will it ll just be most annoying.
IME it depends, they like to settle as it's faster (so cheaper for them)
I had similar (ish) in that someone claimed I'd hit them, weeks earlier - it seems it's a common con
My insurers were going to pay up but I ranted at them and said that I hadn't had a claim for 30+years
At that they asked if I'd allow an assessor to inspect my (undamaged) car, I agreed
The assessor said the majority of his work is now assessing undamaged cars !
I never heard anything further so I presume the case was dropped as my no claims was unaffected
Previously I have placed a large "Witnesses Wanted" sign up at the spot - that was enough to convince the other party to change their version of events
I had similar (ish) in that someone claimed I'd hit them, weeks earlier - it seems it's a common con
My insurers were going to pay up but I ranted at them and said that I hadn't had a claim for 30+years
At that they asked if I'd allow an assessor to inspect my (undamaged) car, I agreed
The assessor said the majority of his work is now assessing undamaged cars !
I never heard anything further so I presume the case was dropped as my no claims was unaffected
Previously I have placed a large "Witnesses Wanted" sign up at the spot - that was enough to convince the other party to change their version of events
I think insurance companies are pushing 50/50 as much as possible because it's more money in renewals from both drivers and less to pay out if the other insurer shoulders half the costs.
If it were me and not my fault I'd resist it to the bitter end. If you have 'legal protection' (or whatever they call it) on your policy you should be able to tell them what outcome you want and they should argue it for you.
If it were me and not my fault I'd resist it to the bitter end. If you have 'legal protection' (or whatever they call it) on your policy you should be able to tell them what outcome you want and they should argue it for you.
ingenieur said:
I think insurance companies are pushing 50/50 as much as possible because it's more money in renewals from both drivers and less to pay out if the other insurer shoulders half the costs.
If it were me and not my fault I'd resist it to the bitter end. If you have 'legal protection' (or whatever they call it) on your policy you should be able to tell them what outcome you want and they should argue it for you.
Firstly, you think there is some great insurance cartel fixing that industry wide? Simply not true. Secondly it’s even cheaper to have the other party pick up liability. If it were me and not my fault I'd resist it to the bitter end. If you have 'legal protection' (or whatever they call it) on your policy you should be able to tell them what outcome you want and they should argue it for you.
That is not what Legal Protection does.
cossy400 said:
She was stationary.
It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we'll bear a hell of a lot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to their vehicle.
50/50 is not knock for knock. They will pay half your costs (£X) and you'll pay half theirs (£0). Both parties equally affected.It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we'll bear a hell of a lot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to their vehicle.
Legal cover. Seems to be another con.
We're often told to read the (not) small print. When you do read it. many, certainly mine, state they won't do anything unless they have over a 50% chance of winning.
Seems pretty pointless. I'd like my insurer to act in my best interest athough I understand they cover the liability so act in their own. If you do have that legal cover you would reasonably expect the cover you paid for to be available when you need it, not just if they think they will profit.
I don't really see what they offer over any no win no fee type arrangment as they'll only take on work they thinlk they'll succeed at too.
With regard to insurance the whole 50/50 thing seems to be just laziness to me. It allows the insurer to mitigate their losses without doing a great deal of work when a little effort would give their customer a far better service.
A friend had her car struck by another. insurer suggested 50/50. Friend pointed out as their car was not only stationary, but correctly parked and unattended they should maybe reconsider.
We're often told to read the (not) small print. When you do read it. many, certainly mine, state they won't do anything unless they have over a 50% chance of winning.
Seems pretty pointless. I'd like my insurer to act in my best interest athough I understand they cover the liability so act in their own. If you do have that legal cover you would reasonably expect the cover you paid for to be available when you need it, not just if they think they will profit.
I don't really see what they offer over any no win no fee type arrangment as they'll only take on work they thinlk they'll succeed at too.
With regard to insurance the whole 50/50 thing seems to be just laziness to me. It allows the insurer to mitigate their losses without doing a great deal of work when a little effort would give their customer a far better service.
A friend had her car struck by another. insurer suggested 50/50. Friend pointed out as their car was not only stationary, but correctly parked and unattended they should maybe reconsider.
Edited by Rick101 on Tuesday 11th January 13:30
kestral said:
cossy400 said:
She was stationary.
It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we ll bare a hell of alot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to there vehicle.
Like I say if I've got to suck it up I will it ll just be most annoying.
I don't understand how it's 50/50 if there is no damage to their vehicle. That amounts to you being 100% liable!It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we ll bare a hell of alot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to there vehicle.
Like I say if I've got to suck it up I will it ll just be most annoying.
speedking31 said:
cossy400 said:
She was stationary.
It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we'll bear a hell of a lot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to their vehicle.
50/50 is not knock for knock. They will pay half your costs (£X) and you'll pay half theirs (£0). Both parties equally affected.It's just the fact that in 50/50 pay out we'll bear a hell of a lot more costs as the other party has done no damage at all to their vehicle.
Dingu said:
ingenieur said:
I think insurance companies are pushing 50/50 as much as possible because it's more money in renewals from both drivers and less to pay out if the other insurer shoulders half the costs.
If it were me and not my fault I'd resist it to the bitter end. If you have 'legal protection' (or whatever they call it) on your policy you should be able to tell them what outcome you want and they should argue it for you.
Firstly, you think there is some great insurance cartel fixing that industry wide? Simply not true. Secondly it’s even cheaper to have the other party pick up liability. If it were me and not my fault I'd resist it to the bitter end. If you have 'legal protection' (or whatever they call it) on your policy you should be able to tell them what outcome you want and they should argue it for you.
That is not what Legal Protection does.
Furthermore, when it comes to underwriting it is probably quite frequently the case that you and the other party are both insured by the same firm (if not directly). In which case there is no requirement for a conspiracy, just company policy that in the first instance they'll attempt a 50/50 with each driver.
ingenieur said:
Dingu said:
ingenieur said:
I think insurance companies are pushing 50/50 as much as possible because it's more money in renewals from both drivers and less to pay out if the other insurer shoulders half the costs.
If it were me and not my fault I'd resist it to the bitter end. If you have 'legal protection' (or whatever they call it) on your policy you should be able to tell them what outcome you want and they should argue it for you.
Firstly, you think there is some great insurance cartel fixing that industry wide? Simply not true. Secondly it’s even cheaper to have the other party pick up liability. If it were me and not my fault I'd resist it to the bitter end. If you have 'legal protection' (or whatever they call it) on your policy you should be able to tell them what outcome you want and they should argue it for you.
That is not what Legal Protection does.
Furthermore, when it comes to underwriting it is probably quite frequently the case that you and the other party are both insured by the same firm (if not directly). In which case there is no requirement for a conspiracy, just company policy that in the first instance they'll attempt a 50/50 with each driver.
It’s highly regulated and competitive.
Not a chance would they get away with a company policy to try on 50/50 regardless of fact.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff