Insurance company versus Solicitor dilemma

[TameRacingDriver]

Yesterday, I was involved in an RTA where someone went up the back of me at a fairly high speed, causing me some minor but painful injuries and making rather a mess of the car. The other bloke admitted liability.

So I decided to ring one of these solicitors to deal with my case, and set the wheels in motion with that. Yesterday they provided me with an enterprise hire car, and this morning, an engineer came to have a look at the car - I'm yet to hear the outcome of his report but he intimated that it would be a write off (the car was bought for shed money and it is a pretty nice car for what it is, but clearly I didn't think it would be economically viable to repair).

In the meantime, the solicitors have emailed me forms to sign and all the rest of it for hire cars, conditional fee agreement, after the event insurance, yada yada....

However, out of the blue today the other guys insurance company rang, said he's admitted liability and offered me a car, and also to FIX mine, and compensate for injuries, and they basically said they would do the same as the solicitors, but quicker, and obviously, at less cost to them.

So I'm not sure what to do now. I still have the solicitors forms sitting on my desk (I've not signed anything as yet), but I do have a hire car sitting around that they've already provided, so am just wondering, do I go with the insurance company who is offering to fix my car and compensate, and if I do, am I liable to be charged by the solicitors for their services thus far, or do I just carry on going through the solicitors (who have been pretty good so far).

[LuS1fer]

If the car is a write-off, you have a duty to go out and replace it as soon as that happens. If he has admitted liability, you will probably get it dealt with faster direct. Just make sure they agree to pay the hire car charges. If you're claiming genuine whiplash, the solicitor may be the better route.

[Codswallop]

TameRacingDriver said:

someone went up the back of me at a fairly high speed, causing me some minor but painful injuries

Maybe be best to speak to the other parties insurer and tell them you have already gotten a car through the solicitor. I'm sure this will not be the first time a client has changed their story to admit liability after solicitors have become involved.

Edited by Codswallop on Tuesday 29th November 13:51

[TameRacingDriver]

Codswallop said:

[TameRacingDriver]

Codswallop said:

Maybe be best to speak to the other parties insurer and tell them you have already gotten a car through the solicitor. I'm sure this will not be the first time a client has changed their story to admit liability after solicitors have become involved.

It was his insurance that rang me and I told them that I already had one although they did seem to think I'd have a right to cancel within 14 days (the hire car).

The guy admitted liability straight away to be fair.

[KungFuPanda]

You've seemingly been contacted by the other guy's insurer's "third party capture team". This has been a recent thing which has been rolled out a few years ago by insurers to try and avoid the exhorbitant cost when hire and accident management companies get involved. These guys will have existing contracts with repairers and hire providers and will seek to reduce their outlay by using these existing suppliers at preferential rates. Your hire car will in all likelihood be on a like for like basis however they may try and force you to use one of their approved repairers whose work may not be of the best standard and will be engineered down to a price.

These guys will also arrange for you to be seen by a medical expert already on their panel who will assess your injuries and offer a prognosis upon which your level of damages will be based.

One thing you will have to remember however is that there could well be a conflict of interest as not only will the other guy's insurers be dealing with all of your claim, but they will also be the paymaster so will they really have your best interests at heart or will their sole objective be dealing with the claim as economically as possible???

If you stick with your own solicitors, they will obviously have your best interested in mind and will ensure that you will receive the maximum compensation in relation the any injury or out of pocket expenses but they will also ensure that the hire car you received will be charged at a higher daily rate and the repairs will probably also be higher too. They will also seek to recover their own costs from the third party insurers.

Ultimately, the decision is yours. it's easy to bemoan the alleged "compensation culture" for bumping up premiums but if you were in this position would you let the other insurance company deal with the totality of your claim to save a few quid or would you hire your own legal representation at an ultimately higher cost to ensure that your interests were fully protected?

[TameRacingDriver]

KungFuPanda said:

You've seemingly been contacted by the other guy's insurer's "third party capture team". This has been a recent thing which has been rolled out a few years ago by insurers to try and avoid the exhorbitant cost when hire and accident management companies get involved. These guys will have existing contracts with repairers and hire providers and will seek to reduce their outlay by using these existing suppliers at preferential rates. Your hire car will in all likelihood be on a like for like basis however they may try and force you to use one of their approved repairers whose work may not be of the best standard and will be engineered down to a price.

These guys will also arrange for you to be seen by a medical expert already on their panel who will assess your injuries and offer a prognosis upon which your level of damages will be based.

One thing you will have to remember however is that there could well be a conflict of interest as not only will the other guy's insurers be dealing with all of your claim, but they will also be the paymaster so will they really have your best interests at heart or will their sole objective be dealing with the claim as economically as possible???

If you stick with your own solicitors, they will obviously have your best interested in mind and will ensure that you will receive the maximum compensation in relation the any injury or out of pocket expenses but they will also ensure that the hire car you received will be charged at a higher daily rate and the repairs will probably also be higher too. They will also seek to recover their own costs from the third party insurers.

Ultimately, the decision is yours. it's easy to bemoan the alleged "compensation culture" for bumping up premiums but if you were in this position would you let the other insurance company deal with the totality of your claim to save a few quid or would you hire your own legal representation at an ultimately higher cost to ensure that your interests were fully protected?

Bloody good post, and you've made up my mind for me TBQH. Thanks for that

[Noger]

Interestingly the FSA concluded that TP capture (which is a tiny proportion of claims anyway) didn't significantly disadvantage the claimant. What it did do is reduce their options.

It is arguable as to whether the TP insurer was "first to the client" in this case, so probably shouldn't be making the offer anyway. Although they may be doing so to later show that you could have got your hire car cheaper from them.

You do realise that you are personally liable for the hire charges, don't you ? And have a duty to mitigate costs ?

Solicitors looking after YOU first, hehe, you come a close 3nd after the Porsche fund

It is probably the best choice, but don't kid yourself that you aren't funding that GT3 when all you are getting is a few nice phone calls and a newer hire car !

Edited by Noger on Tuesday 29th November 14:40

[TameRacingDriver]

Noger said:

You do realise that you are personally liable for the hire charges, don't you ? And have a duty to mitigate costs

14 day cooling off period for the car and I won't have it long. Won't be needing it after the weekend anyway.

[U T]

Noger said:

You do realise that you are personally liable for the hire charges, don't you ? And have a duty to mitigate costs ?

Edited by Noger on Tuesday 29th November 14:40

Almost certainly a credit hire agreement. The solicitors have got the circumstances and the tp insurance details so arranged credit hire. They in turn insure against not being able to make a recovery of the hire car costs. So OP will not be liable for hire car costs, regardless of outcome.

[zeb]

'compensation culture' bumping up premiums???

you want to try running a company and fighting it. I've had a cyclist drive into a parked (legally) van of one of my drivers and the insurance company want to settle as his claim for damages could 'mount excessively'.

I had a short but factual conversation today, informing them that it would be a cold day in hell before I accepted liability for some numpty who managed to ride directly into a stationary vehicle.

who do we thinks paying for all this.....??

[5lab]

LuS1fer said:

If the car is a write-off, you have a duty to go out and replace it as soon as that happens. If he has admitted liability, you will probably get it dealt with faster direct. Just make sure they agree to pay the hire car charges. If you're claiming genuine whiplash, the solicitor may be the better route.

I'm not sure that's true, if its written off and you're not in a financial position to replace it, prior to recieving a payout (as the vast majority of people probably are), I can't see how the onus would be on your to do so

[U T]

zeb said:

'compensation culture' bumping up premiums???

you want to try running a company and fighting it. I've had a cyclist drive into a parked (legally) van of one of my drivers and the insurance company want to settle as his claim for damages could 'mount excessively'.

I had a short but factual conversation today, informing them that it would be a cold day in hell before I accepted liability for some numpty who managed to ride directly into a stationary vehicle.

who do we thinks paying for all this.....??

Must be more to it than that. The cyclist must have a different version of events and be holding your driver at fault.

[LuS1fer]

5lab said:

I'm not sure that's true, if its written off and you're not in a financial position to replace it, prior to recieving a payout (as the vast majority of people probably are), I can't see how the onus would be on your to do so

That was the advice given to me a while back now and I was told impecunity is not acceptable as a reason for not replacing. I'm a criminal, not a civil lawyer but doubt it has changed. The number of people who become a cropper with hire car charges they are suibsequently liable for is also increasing, especially with ambulance chasers who think they can claim it.

[16v stretch]

5lab said:

I'm not sure that's true, if its written off and you're not in a financial position to replace it, prior to recieving a payout (as the vast majority of people probably are), I can't see how the onus would be on your to do so

In most circumstances an engineer has about 3 days to submit a report, cheques are given 2 days to arrive once posted so you could be paid out for the vehicle after about 7 working days if they're on their game. Once that settlement for the car arrives or it's taken off to be repaired (and in this instance the repairer would most likely provide you a courtesy (not hire) car to mitigate their own costs) you would be expected to use their courtesy car or purchase yourself a new vehicle within a reasonable timescale.

If you had dealt with your own insurance rather than the solicitor you would have a duty to mitigate costs to the claim, your solicitor is probably billing the hire car at £80 per day.

Think if the shoe was on the other foot and they were claiming from your insurance, you'd rather they take up your ins co's offer or give up a hire car asap.

[zeb]

U T said:

Must be more to it than that. The cyclist must have a different version of events and be holding your driver at fault.

quite true...my driver managed to open the passenger door from a suppliers premises 28ft away.!!! That aside, MY insurers want to settle to prevent costs rising, and thats what wrong with the whole damn system, there not bothered about apportioning whose fault it was, just trying to shut the case down.

[U T]

zeb said:

U T said:

Must be more to it than that. The cyclist must have a different version of events and be holding your driver at fault.

quite true...my driver managed to open the passenger door from a suppliers premises 28ft away.!!! That aside, MY insurers want to settle to prevent costs rising, and thats what wrong with the whole damn system, there not bothered about apportioning whose fault it was, just trying to shut the case down.

OK, so the cyclist is claiming (untruly) that your guy opened his door in his path. Trouble is with no independent witnessess it's very difficult. I'm sure your insurers don't enjoy throwing money away, but these days in the courts, commercial van v cyclist, you've got no chance.

Not your insurers fault, they're trying to mitigate costs and settle as best they can. I'd support them, not fight them.

[zeb]

True

not my fault or my insurers

but we end up paying......

[KungFuPanda]

Notwithstanding the fact that I am a defendant solicitor and have to deal with settling PI, hire, repair costs and other special damages claims on behalf of insurance companies, I find that my hands are tied when dealing with such claims.

Insurance companies judge us by our turnaround of cases and settlement times. The actual cost of damages is only one factor which is used to determine the effectiveness of our case handling. Although my firm has good relationships with the case handlers at the insurance company which spans over decades, the ultimate indicator of our performance is a management information sheet which is sent over to the insurer on a monthly basis.

With experience, you will find that certain Courts are Claimant friendly and some District Judges feel as though they are obliged to aard the poor Claimant at least something as recompense for the fact that they were involved in an accident.

With regards the hire claims, yes the Claimant is ultimately personally responsible for the cost of hire hoever, as mentioned before, he can protect himself from such a liability by availing himself of a protective insurance policy, the cost of which can of course be recouped from the at fault party. Over the years, I have seen many attempted challenges over the validity of hire contracts, and the use of dormant companies / incorrect signatories to such agreements all of which have been unsuccessful. It makes me sick to hand over cheques in the tens of thousands to companies such as Accident Exchange and Help Hire however ultimately, sad though it is, we know that if such cases are pursued to a final disposal hearing, the District Judge will most often award a higher figure than what we had previously offered which results in increased costs of running such matters to a final hearing.

I've not yet had the opportunity of reading the full judgment regards the claim for hire presented by Darren Bent where he hired an Aston Martin DB9 as a replacement for his CL63 (??) but the Court of Appeal allowed the majority of his hire charges even though he had the use of another vehicle and would of course have had access to enough funds to hire another one on a regular day rate rather than on a credit basis. Most of the general public don't have access to ready funds to effect their own repairs / purchase a new vehicle or hire their own vehicle and this is where the mitigation argument fails.

It pisses me off royally when I have to settle claims such as this however I'd rather do this than go over to the dark side...

[Noger]

U T said:

Noger said:

You do realise that you are personally liable for the hire charges, don't you ? And have a duty to mitigate costs ?

Edited by Noger on Tuesday 29th November 14:40

Almost certainly a credit hire agreement. The solicitors have got the circumstances and the tp insurance details so arranged credit hire. They in turn insure against not being able to make a recovery of the hire car costs. So OP will not be liable for hire car costs, regardless of outcome.

The contract needs to be enforceable, that isn't to say you can't always recover when it isn't but in many cases when there is no debt, there can be no recovery.

In this case, the 14 days cooling off is because it is a contract signed at home, but it hasn't actually been signed yet. Things get complicated if you have no contract but you have the requisite policy in place to pay for it.