Likely Outcome of Insurance Claim

[scrubchub]

A few weeks ago my missus was involved in a fairly minor bump. She was waiting to enter a roundabout and someone went into the back of her. About as clear cut as it gets. The guy who did it was driving a works van and didn't want to go through insurance but my missus decided to play it safe and informed her insurance company. Car was taken to the insurers body-shop and turns out it has over a grand worth of damage done to the back, so it seemed like a good idea to involve the insurers.

A couple of weeks later, and the inevitable has happened and this guy has decided that it is my missus' fault as she 'rolled backwards' into him. Obviously a blatant lie, and the insurers were informed as such. Pictures have been taken of the scene of the bump to show that it is a flat entrance and rolling wouldn't occur at all, let alone to the extent that a resulting collision would cause £1000+ of damage. Her insurers have already mentioned the dreaded 50/50 as a possibility, to which my other half responded 'firmly', shall we say.

Any one have any idea what the likely outcome here is? It feels so clear cut to me, but you never know.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

[TVR1]

Save any evidence to the contrary and independent witnesses;

50/50 sounds like as good as it will get.

[Jon1967x]

Rolling back would be a low speed impact and most cars withstand bumps up to 5mph or so without damage. The evidence is not commensurate with his story, but his job could be on the line.

Stick in a whiplash claim as you've been hit from behind, you can play just as dirty if they want to play that way.

[pork911]

Jon1967x said:

Stick in a whiplash claim as you've been hit from behind, you can play just as dirty if they want to play that way.

Idiotic and criminal advice.

[Jon1967x]

pork911 said:

Jon1967x said:

Stick in a whiplash claim as you've been hit from behind, you can play just as dirty if they want to play that way.

Idiotic and criminal advice.

I was being ironic..

[pork911]

Jon1967x said:

pork911 said:

Jon1967x said:

Stick in a whiplash claim as you've been hit from behind, you can play just as dirty if they want to play that way.

Idiotic and criminal advice.

I was being ironic..

Ahh no wink, best to check round here.

[Jon1967x]

Jon1967x said:

Rolling back would be a low speed impact and most cars withstand bumps up to 5mph or so without damage. The evidence is not commensurate with his story, but his job could be on the line.

Stick in a whiplash claim as you've been hit from behind, you can play just as dirty if they want to play that way.

On good advice.. EFA

[walm]

Bad luck to your missus.
My only advice is to stick to your guns the whole way even if you have no independent witnesses.
Refuse to accept 50:50 and explain you are happy to go to court.
The important part is to do your best to forget about it.
Don't let it consume you with anger at the unfairness of it all.
Put it to the back of your minds and get on with life.
Sure you may have to take some annoying phone calls and deal with morons who don't understand the laws of physics but it could be a lot worse!

[Jon1967x]

You probably need to convince your insurer as much as theirs. If they deem it hard work to prove otherwise they'll go 50/50, you'll have to pay the excess and their total loss might end up being just a few hundred quid of the bill. If they believe its fairly unambiguous, and rear end shunts usually are (why was he so close to you anyway? why did he not beep his horn if you were rolling back etc?) then they may try and resist on your behalf.

Logic on who's most likely to blame can often disappear in my experience having had to go 50/50 twice albeit in different circumstances over the years, its about the cheapest way of dealing with the issue for the insurance companies.

[Monty Python]

If you can cause £1000 worth of damage just by rolling backwards into the car behind, I'd be looking for another car.

Seriously, if the damage is that bad then you'd have to stick in in reverse and accelerate backwards, and then the point of impact would be different.

[the_lone_wolf]

Surely if she really had rolled backwards it would be entirely 100% her fault?

How can 50/50 be an accurate proportioning of blame here? Either she hit him or he hit her...

[John145]

Surely if you prove that the road is flat, ie drive up there, stop, all brakes off and it doesn't move, job done?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

the_lone_wolf said:

Surely if she really had rolled backwards it would be entirely 100% her fault?

How can 50/50 be an accurate proportioning of blame here? Either she hit him or he hit her...

If both parties blame the other and their are no witnesses, then 50/50 makes sense. Of course someone is lying, but who? Both insurers will believe their policyholder.

[SK425]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Surely if she really had rolled backwards it would be entirely 100% her fault?

How can 50/50 be an accurate proportioning of blame here? Either she hit him or he hit her...

If both parties blame the other and their are no witnesses, then 50/50 makes sense. Of course someone is lying, but who? Both insurers will believe their policyholder.

I presume what we're talking about isn't really 50/50 apportioning of blame/costs/liability, but just letting costs lie where they fall - i.e. both parties have to fix there own damage and neither claims for anything from the other.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SK425 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

the_lone_wolf said:

Surely if she really had rolled backwards it would be entirely 100% her fault?

How can 50/50 be an accurate proportioning of blame here? Either she hit him or he hit her...

If both parties blame the other and their are no witnesses, then 50/50 makes sense. Of course someone is lying, but who? Both insurers will believe their policyholder.

I presume what we're talking about isn't really 50/50 apportioning of blame/costs/liability, but just letting costs lie where they fall - i.e. both parties have to fix there own damage and neither claims for anything from the other.

No, that would be unfair on the person with the most damage. It's 50/50. Each person (or their insurer) pays half their own damage and half the other persons.

As regards the excess, each person can claim half their excess back from the other's insurer.

[Pip1968]

Jon1967x said:

pork911 said:

Jon1967x said:

Stick in a whiplash claim as you've been hit from behind, you can play just as dirty if they want to play that way.

Idiotic and criminal advice.

I was being ironic..

I am not sure that you fully understand the meaning of irony. Perhaps you are confusing it with idiocy.

Pip

[LoonR1]

Here we go again. It works like this. Your wife tells her insurer that their version of events is bks. Her insurer relays this to the van insurers. Her insurers say "settle at 100% non fault or we litigate". Van insurers umm and ahh for a bit whilst van driver digs his heels in. Then he folds in a few months thine just before it goes to court.

That's it.

[Red Devil]

walm said:

Bad luck to your missus.
My only advice is to stick to your guns the whole way even if you have no independent witnesses.
Refuse to accept 50:50 and explain you are happy to go to court.

All well and good but, as things currently stand, the decision on whether it will is with her insurer and they may well not want to incur the extra costs of doing so. Of course there is nothing to stop her issuing the claim herself. Good luck with that.

walm said:

The important part is to do your best to forget about it.
Don't let it consume you with anger at the unfairness of it all.
Put it to the back of your minds and get on with life.elf
Sure you may have to take some annoying phone calls and deal with morons who don't understand the laws of physics but it could be a lot worse!

+1

[Jon1967x]

Pip1968 said:

Jon1967x said:

pork911 said:

Jon1967x said:

Stick in a whiplash claim as you've been hit from behind, you can play just as dirty if they want to play that way.

Idiotic and criminal advice.

I was being ironic..

I am not sure that you fully understand the meaning of irony. Perhaps you are confusing it with idiocy.

Pip

"happening in a way contrary to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this"

They propose 50/50, you go in the opposite direction by claiming whiplash contrary to the outcome they hoped, whiplash a cause of great fraud in the motoring world and a race to the bottom, getting into a tit for tat and mounting claims and counter claims over a simple nudge in the back and all for the readers on here, a cause for wry amusement.

HTH..

[walm]

Red Devil said:

walm said:

Bad luck to your missus.
My only advice is to stick to your guns the whole way even if you have no independent witnesses.
Refuse to accept 50:50 and explain you are happy to go to court.

All well and good but, as things currently stand, the decision on whether it will is with her insurer and they may well not want to incur the extra costs of doing so. Of course there is nothing to stop her issuing the claim herself. Good luck with that.

I was under the impression that you can continue to refuse 50-50 - maybe I am completely off.
But comments such as this one from our resident insider gave the impression you do have some control!

LoonR1 said:

Your wife tells her insurer that their version of events is bks. Her insurer relays this to the van insurers. Her insurers say "settle at 100% non fault or we litigate".