whiplash claim, 2mph
Discussion
one of our engineers at work drove his vw caddy into the back of an audi A1 in crawling traffic.
did absolutely zero damage to either vehicle, took photos to prove it. you literally can't tell anything has happened.
tracker hows the engineer was traveling consistently at 0-3mph for 30 minutes around the time (stuck in heavy traffic)
injury claim of whiplash received...
engineer says the guy in the audi said he works in insurance, maybe he knows how to play the game...
did absolutely zero damage to either vehicle, took photos to prove it. you literally can't tell anything has happened.
tracker hows the engineer was traveling consistently at 0-3mph for 30 minutes around the time (stuck in heavy traffic)
injury claim of whiplash received...
engineer says the guy in the audi said he works in insurance, maybe he knows how to play the game...
Hmm, I was in an accident a couple of days ago - my dash cam says it was ~20mph. I told the third party insurers I had no intention of making a personal injury claim - but now my neck is feeling a bit sore 
I hate parasites like that - I wonder if the tracker info and lack of damage is enough to fight it?
I hate parasites like that - I wonder if the tracker info and lack of damage is enough to fight it?
WCZ said:
one of our engineers at work drove his vw caddy into the back of an audi A1 in crawling traffic.
did absolutely zero damage to either vehicle, took photos to prove it. you literally can't tell anything has happened.
tracker hows the engineer was traveling consistently at 0-3mph for 30 minutes around the time (stuck in heavy traffic)
injury claim of whiplash received...
engineer says the guy in the audi said he works in insurance, maybe he knows how to play the game...
Risky move if he is, that can be a job ending action!did absolutely zero damage to either vehicle, took photos to prove it. you literally can't tell anything has happened.
tracker hows the engineer was traveling consistently at 0-3mph for 30 minutes around the time (stuck in heavy traffic)
injury claim of whiplash received...
engineer says the guy in the audi said he works in insurance, maybe he knows how to play the game...
As you have telematics for the van I'd get it straight to your insurer and raise your concerns, they should pass it to the relevant internal team (fraud/validations usually).
It may drag on awhile but hopefully your insurer is up for challenging false LVI claims, if they get sufficient evidence they may even refer to IFED.
I was in a similar situation about 2 years ago.
If you have the photos, telematics and any other evidence like a engineers report of 'damage' it may take a while but should get resolved.
My insurer told me that they normally don't fight whiplash claims as they usually lose, but in my case they did fight and after 18 months the other party withdrew the claim. I suspect they got a call from one of the 'where there's blame there's a claim' solicitors and thought they were in for a simple payday. Once they found out it involved making statements to investigators and appearing in court they decided it wasn't something they wanted to pursue after all.
If you have the photos, telematics and any other evidence like a engineers report of 'damage' it may take a while but should get resolved.
My insurer told me that they normally don't fight whiplash claims as they usually lose, but in my case they did fight and after 18 months the other party withdrew the claim. I suspect they got a call from one of the 'where there's blame there's a claim' solicitors and thought they were in for a simple payday. Once they found out it involved making statements to investigators and appearing in court they decided it wasn't something they wanted to pursue after all.
MarcelM6 said:
I was in a similar situation about 2 years ago.
If you have the photos, telematics and any other evidence like a engineers report of 'damage' it may take a while but should get resolved.
My insurer told me that they normally don't fight whiplash claims as they usually lose, but in my case they did fight and after 18 months the other party withdrew the claim. I suspect they got a call from one of the 'where there's blame there's a claim' solicitors and thought they were in for a simple payday. Once they found out it involved making statements to investigators and appearing in court they decided it wasn't something they wanted to pursue after all.
I've submitted everything, insurer says it's unlikely they'll fight it because of the reasons you mentioned but we'll see...If you have the photos, telematics and any other evidence like a engineers report of 'damage' it may take a while but should get resolved.
My insurer told me that they normally don't fight whiplash claims as they usually lose, but in my case they did fight and after 18 months the other party withdrew the claim. I suspect they got a call from one of the 'where there's blame there's a claim' solicitors and thought they were in for a simple payday. Once they found out it involved making statements to investigators and appearing in court they decided it wasn't something they wanted to pursue after all.
extremely frustrating.
this isn't the first time this has happened but last time the speed was around 15mph and despite it being clearly a false claim it didn't bother me so much
If you have a dash cam I'd take someones plates and use them as an eye witness of you can all should be good to stay out of a whiplash claim I had that 3 years ago. I crashed my bike into a pared car and the owner tried to claim injury's when they wasn't even in the vehicle. I was lucky I had my mates with me as witnesses and the ambulance team was also on my side. I was the one left with a broken leg and a woman coming out her house saying "Thats the second bike thats hit my car parked there" (Bit^& don't park there)
VAG Hamez said:
...and the owner tried to claim injury's when they wasn't even in the vehicle...
I thought it was interesting when speaking to the third party insurer on Tuesday after my accident. They specifically asked whether there was anybody else in my vehicle and whether there was anyone else in the third party vehicle. Guess the crash for cash stuff has made them ask this stuff straight away.Insurance companies seem to be encouraging injury claims with the questions they ask about the accident, they ask more questions about your own injuries than they do about the cars involved and the damage sustained to them, and I think they also start injury claims pre-emptively before they have the full facts.
lyonspride said:
Insurance companies seem to be encouraging injury claims with the questions they ask about the accident, they ask more questions about your own injuries than they do about the cars involved and the damage sustained to them, and I think they also start injury claims pre-emptively before they have the full facts.
I'd concur with that.Self serving industry?
dukeboy749r said:
lyonspride said:
Insurance companies seem to be encouraging injury claims with the questions they ask about the accident, they ask more questions about your own injuries than they do about the cars involved and the damage sustained to them, and I think they also start injury claims pre-emptively before they have the full facts.
I'd concur with that.Self serving industry?
If you are in a non-fault crash then you can claim for all losses from the other side. Your insurance doesn’t ever pay out for injuries to you. They will repair your car (if you have fully comp cover) and then reclaim thatbfrom the other side. That’s where their liability ends.
They will probably refer you to an injury solicitor, but that will often only be in younhave legal expenses cover bought with the policy.
dukeboy749r said:
lyonspride said:
Insurance companies seem to be encouraging injury claims with the questions they ask about the accident, they ask more questions about your own injuries than they do about the cars involved and the damage sustained to them, and I think they also start injury claims pre-emptively before they have the full facts.
I'd concur with that.Self serving industry?
Damage to vehicles is limited to its total market value something which is easily obtainable by the insurance company however injury claims can spiral quickly and be subject to many variables.
If insurers were to skirt the issue and bury their head in the sand about a potential injury then then claimant party is highly likely to end up with an accident management company/solicitor with inflated costs incoming, if the insurer asks these details straight away and gets all the information needed they have far better chances of controlling the costs and avoiding inflated or fraudulent claims.
The horse has bolted from the stable on injury claims, people know they can claim for injury and will, insurers have to pre-empt and mitigate these costs and they certainly won't be able to do that without asking a few simple questions.
ZOLLAR said:
It may appear like that but there is a genuine reason for asking more in depth questions on injuries than car damage.
Damage to vehicles is limited to its total market value something which is easily obtainable by the insurance company however injury claims can spiral quickly and be subject to many variables.
If insurers were to skirt the issue and bury their head in the sand about a potential injury then then claimant party is highly likely to end up with an accident management company/solicitor with inflated costs incoming, if the insurer asks these details straight away and gets all the information needed they have far better chances of controlling the costs and avoiding inflated or fraudulent claims.
The horse has bolted from the stable on injury claims, people know they can claim for injury and will, insurers have to pre-empt and mitigate these costs and they certainly won't be able to do that without asking a few simple questions.
Not sure I agree. Your insurer is never on the hook for injuries you sustain (other than those fixed payout bolt on policies hat they sell). It serves no direct purpose for them to have any info on your injuries. It may help them prioritise your case when they pass it on to their ABS legal set up and / or arguably help to assess whether there’s likely to be a serious claim from the other side when their own driver is at fault, but even that is a bit spurious. Damage to vehicles is limited to its total market value something which is easily obtainable by the insurance company however injury claims can spiral quickly and be subject to many variables.
If insurers were to skirt the issue and bury their head in the sand about a potential injury then then claimant party is highly likely to end up with an accident management company/solicitor with inflated costs incoming, if the insurer asks these details straight away and gets all the information needed they have far better chances of controlling the costs and avoiding inflated or fraudulent claims.
The horse has bolted from the stable on injury claims, people know they can claim for injury and will, insurers have to pre-empt and mitigate these costs and they certainly won't be able to do that without asking a few simple questions.
greygoose said:
21TonyK said:
Not a Dr but 2mph does sound unlikely. However, I was in a very low speed accident earlier this year, (car reversed into me while I was stationery) and I definitely had injury to my neck and shoulder.
Paper must bruise easily.its all total horses
t and theft.
I crashed on track the other day at 82mph (when I lost control)
Hit the barrier, no problem whatsoever
over the years I've had maybe..............3 whiplash cases for proper shunts.
It gets better in a couple of days - and they don't hurt that much anway.
Got wiped off my motorbike in February. Broke my wrist and twisted my knee.
didn't claim anything - as well, it was an accident.
WTF is wrong with people!
t and theft.I crashed on track the other day at 82mph (when I lost control)
Hit the barrier, no problem whatsoever
over the years I've had maybe..............3 whiplash cases for proper shunts.
It gets better in a couple of days - and they don't hurt that much anway.
Got wiped off my motorbike in February. Broke my wrist and twisted my knee.
didn't claim anything - as well, it was an accident.
WTF is wrong with people!
Gavia said:
ZOLLAR said:
It may appear like that but there is a genuine reason for asking more in depth questions on injuries than car damage.
Damage to vehicles is limited to its total market value something which is easily obtainable by the insurance company however injury claims can spiral quickly and be subject to many variables.
If insurers were to skirt the issue and bury their head in the sand about a potential injury then then claimant party is highly likely to end up with an accident management company/solicitor with inflated costs incoming, if the insurer asks these details straight away and gets all the information needed they have far better chances of controlling the costs and avoiding inflated or fraudulent claims.
The horse has bolted from the stable on injury claims, people know they can claim for injury and will, insurers have to pre-empt and mitigate these costs and they certainly won't be able to do that without asking a few simple questions.
Not sure I agree. Your insurer is never on the hook for injuries you sustain (other than those fixed payout bolt on policies hat they sell). It serves no direct purpose for them to have any info on your injuries. It may help them prioritise your case when they pass it on to their ABS legal set up and / or arguably help to assess whether there’s likely to be a serious claim from the other side when their own driver is at fault, but even that is a bit spurious. Damage to vehicles is limited to its total market value something which is easily obtainable by the insurance company however injury claims can spiral quickly and be subject to many variables.
If insurers were to skirt the issue and bury their head in the sand about a potential injury then then claimant party is highly likely to end up with an accident management company/solicitor with inflated costs incoming, if the insurer asks these details straight away and gets all the information needed they have far better chances of controlling the costs and avoiding inflated or fraudulent claims.
The horse has bolted from the stable on injury claims, people know they can claim for injury and will, insurers have to pre-empt and mitigate these costs and they certainly won't be able to do that without asking a few simple questions.
It also may help should your policyholder attempt to make a fraudulent claim against the TP through exaggerated injuries, all insurers are required to do what they can to reduce fraud.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff