Supermarket accident

[supermono]

The mrs' car collided with another while they were both reversing. Neither party saw the other but both claim that they started first. Witnesses say both of them were moving at the time of the impact.

Now to my mind, this seems like a simple 50:50 and I'd like her to report it as such, except the bloke in the other car claimed on the spot that it was her fault (sigh). Question is, she doesn't want to make a claim for her car but if he manages to pursuade the insco that it's her fault, she might as well get the repairs out of her insurance since she'll be losing no claims anyhow.

Since he's claiming it's her fault, does she have to claim it's his fault to make 50:50 more likely? I'm afriad that if she honestly writes it was both party's fault, it'll be trumped by his agressive claim of "her fault".

Not really sure how to proceed...

SM
ps Fiat Doblo thankfully not GT2

[TheCarpetCleaner]

I would have thought that without a witness specifically claiming x started before y, it would be ruled as 50 - 50, most insurance companies will just do this anyway as its easier and cheaper for them rather than dragging it out.

I got hit by a car on a roundabout in Wales some time back, it was actually their fault and I had a (police) witness, but because the damage was so little and they couldnt be ed to do their jobs properly (the insurance company not the police!) they just wrote it off 50/50

Oh if only I knew what I know now I would have kicked some insurance company ass...

[TPS]

It sounds like he is going to claim and blame your misses.Therefore you need as with all accidents to inform your insco right now so they are aware and he can not use this against you,ie they kept quiet because there guilty and trying to cover it up.Then if i were you id claim against him blaming him.Then in the end both insurance companys will probably want to settle by going 50/50 blame.

[streaky]

TheCarpetCleaner said:

I would have thought that without a witness specifically claiming x started before y, it would be ruled as 50 - 50, most insurance companies will just do this anyway as its easier and cheaper for them rather than dragging it out.

I got hit by a car on a roundabout in Wales some time back, it was actually their fault and I had a (police) witness, but because the damage was so little and they couldnt be ed to do their jobs properly (the insurance company not the police!) they just wrote it off 50/50

Oh if only I knew what I know now I would have kicked some insurance company ass...

"Little damage" and they wrote it off? - Streaky

[Pork_n_Beem]

May as well get it repaired, although there is still the excess to consider, you will have to try anmd get it back.

I think your insurance co will automatically blame the other driver.

I have had some bizarre comebacks when the other driver was clearly at fault even when the Bib were prosecuting the other driver it still does not seam to stop the insurance cos having a laugh.

[Trax]

As others have said, you will have to report to your insurance, as they will be trying to claim against your missus. It will go 50:50, so you might aswell have your car repaird properly, and dont forget you will only have to pay 50% of your excess.

[WildCat]

supermono said:

The mrs' car collided with another while they were both reversing. Neither party saw the other but both claim that they started first. Witnesses say both of them were moving at the time of the impact.

Now to my mind, this seems like a simple 50:50 and I'd like her to report it as such, except the bloke in the other car claimed on the spot that it was her fault (sigh). Question is, she doesn't want to make a claim for her car but if he manages to pursuade the insco that it's her fault, she might as well get the repairs out of her insurance since she'll be losing no claims anyhow.

Since he's claiming it's her fault, does she have to claim it's his fault to make 50:50 more likely? I'm afriad that if she honestly writes it was both party's fault, it'll be trumped by his agressive claim of "her fault".

Not really sure how to proceed...

SM
ps Fiat Doblo thankfully not GT2

I hope she did not admit any liability. Even saying "Whoops! Sorry!" count against you.

To me - und no disrespect intended to Mrs Supermono, but it seem to me that neither did a mirror check. What if child or anyone pushing a trolley behind you?

Supermarket car parks can be a devil with insurers as well. Be warned - they claim "private land" und all sort of wigglers to get out of paying up given half a chance to. :roll: Why I paid for the Hit/runner myself back in January. I sent letter to them of "best of Wildy's und Mad Doc's hissy rants" We make it plain that we report as expected but played down the damage which was repaired at cost most reasonable at our local dealer here. (I think I was more shocked at what happened at the time. They have not traced the unqualified scrotes to date but the police were just lovely all the same. Have no complaints as to their concerned gentlemanly behaviour at all.

The fact witnesses say both were moving at time of impact will give more ammo to a 50:50 or knock for knock settlement.

If I were involved in any scrape - I would always take a photo of all damage/roaad positioning und any debris spread. I would also record all conversations at the scene to ensure no one can claim aggression or threat from me or any shocked "unwise comment". It would of course record the other party;s aggressive claims along with an attempt to intimidate to accepting liablity. Useful ammo to have.

I have never had an accident (apart from the epic und the one in the car park last January since I started to drive at age 18 (with gap after incident after which I retook my IAM/ROSPA to make sure I was "as safe as I could realistically be on these roads of yours&quot

However, I make sure that I do have means to record anything in complete fairness. If I were involved in any incident - I would also provide the other party with all photos/recordings as matter of fairness. I think I am thus prudent.

When you calm down. Contact the other party. Try to get realistic repair quotes from him. If affordable given this could go 50:50 but by no means clear given this was on a car park (check out the legality with the supermarket ) - then calmly negotiate based on the costs. This of course if you do not want to involve insurers as in 50:50 both can lose no claims .

Insurers alas are sharks who prey on us all for their business

[g_attrill]

Heard my neighbour had an accident today - apparently they were in a supermarket (not sure if the main car park or petrol station) and was hit by a car - apparently she broken a leg and crushed a knee (poss hit against her own?) and was in for 3hrs surgery. Will be a bit of a bind, she has a 6mth old baby, a young child and her husband has a busy building contractor's business.

[Wiseoldboy]

All Insurance companies tell you not to admit liability,(It will be in your welcome pack somewhere) so I would say stick to their rules and it will be up to them, so will probably be 50/50, but to get this you must claim as is the other driver, don't let him off free as you would be the only one to lose your no claim bonus. As the others have said you might as well let the insurance pay for your repairs, as you will lose your no claims bonus anyway unless it is protected.

GO FOR IT.

Good luck.

[paulsavage]

Two of my nieghbours recently backed into each other.

One(A) was reversing out of his garage onto shared private lane while the other(B)was reversing along said lane.

B went "****in" mental to anyone who would listen about how it was not his fault as he was on the major route and the other guy was coming out onto that route.

Both parties recieved letters stating that as it was on private land and as both parties were reversing then it was an insurance industry agreement/protcol that this was a 50/50 claim and each party could claim only for their own damage.

Party B continued to fight this with his insurance but got no where!

Insurance companies always blame the person reversing and if both parties are reversing then 50/50.
In her claim she only needs to explain the facts rather than expressing any kind of blame or guilt

hope that helps

Edited by paulsavage on Sunday 17th June 20:31

[AndyAudi]

My Grandmother reversed into and knocked over a parked motorbike in a supermarket car park. She exchanged details etc and it was pretty obvious who had been at fault.

Grandmothers inusrance co advised bikes insurance as it was a supermarket car park they would not pay out for the bike repairs, incidents in the car park being "knock for knock".

Crafty insurance co also counted it as a claim against by grandmother even though they didn't pay out!

Andy

[supermono]

Update...sorry it's a bit long winded...

Oh what a tale of woe. After the incident the other guy called for her insurance details, which she provided. Next thing he asks about all those witnesses (5 of them) who's names and addresses I collected but he didn't, she only goes and tells him who they are being nice but dim.

Now, at the time the passenger in his car seemed to know one of the lads -- she was the dinner lady or something at his school. I asked each one of them at the time if they saw anything, who'd began to reverse first, who's fault it was.

Nothing.

Today, the wife's insco tell her they've settled 100% in his favour since three witnesses all say he started to reverse before she did!

So what's that all about? I told the insco that this is a different account to the one I took at the scene but they weren't bothered to pursue it.

My suspicion is that the woman who had a rapport with one of those witnesses, fed a line to him and the others having them give false statements. I suggested to insco that she should take it to court because if they were to testify under oath it'd be harder for them to lie and the truth would out. She said she wasn't bothered and wouldn't do anything...

Seems like the end of the road. But it's clearly just wrong.

Is there anything I can do?

SM

[oldsoak]

Have the OH's tongue cut out?

[Sheriff JWPepper]

I can't see how it matters who started reversing first.

If you don't stop reversing before the impact then you aren't looking where you're going and so are just as much at fault.

[supermono]

A-ha! indeed that's what I thought. But the insco are refusing to move, they've admitted liability and it's 100% my missus' fault...

What can I do to tell them to reconsider?

SM

[Sheriff JWPepper]

Don't know much about the way insurance companies investigate accidents but it would probably cost them more to investigate than to pay out for a small shunt.

If it was a large claim then I imagine they would take a second look.

I'm sure someone will be able to advise but I would think that sadly it sounds like a done deal. It there are several 'independant' witnesses to say Mrs SM is at fault then you'll have a tough time. Not a nice situation to be in.

[spants]

you need to insist to your ins company that if they want to record it as 100% to save their time and costs then the accident is recorded as no fault on your details and no excess. Otherwise create hell! you didnt ask them to settle.

[BIG DUNC]

If you are the policy holder, and someone claims against you, can the ins company pay out, even if you as policy holder say "no, don't pay out from my policy"? I have always wanted to know this. If not, it would mean the person claiming would have to approach you directly. You are the customer, and the ins company is acting on your behalf, so they should not act against your wishes. However, I am sure the ins company will take huge objection to this, especialy if they have allready admited liability on your behalf.

[Sheriff JWPepper]

BIG DUNC said:

If you are the policy holder, and someone claims against you, can the ins company pay out, even if you as policy holder say "no, don't pay out from my policy"? I have always wanted to know this. If not, it would mean the person claiming would have to approach you directly. You are the customer, and the ins company is acting on your behalf, so they should not act against your wishes. However, I am sure the ins company will take huge objection to this, especialy if they have allready admited liability on your behalf.

That wouldn't work or you could just tell them not to pay out to keep your no claims bonus.

[Chrisgr31]

Do you have legal cover on your policy? Might seek to rvoke that to get half your excess back.

Who started reversing first is irrelevant, whats important is whether one party was stationary at the moment of impact.