Hypothetical Insurance Question?
Discussion
I attended an 3 vehicle RTC yesterday. Car A pulled out into Car B causing a collision. Car C swerved to avoid the collision, mounted the kerb and hit a roadsign.
The driver from C was my patient, and was uninjured. In the back of my ambulance she asked me if she was going to have to foot the bill for her car and the sign from her insurance, or would Car A's cover it?
I couldn't answer her question, and the PC that was with us didn't know either. I said that its best just to let your insurers sort it all out as that's what you pay them for.
However, what is the answer to this? If your vehicle sustains damage due to avoiding somebody else's poor driving are you liable or are they?
Thanks
The driver from C was my patient, and was uninjured. In the back of my ambulance she asked me if she was going to have to foot the bill for her car and the sign from her insurance, or would Car A's cover it?
I couldn't answer her question, and the PC that was with us didn't know either. I said that its best just to let your insurers sort it all out as that's what you pay them for.
However, what is the answer to this? If your vehicle sustains damage due to avoiding somebody else's poor driving are you liable or are they?
Thanks
I appreciate Zollar you are "in the business" but I disagree, if put in a situation by someone else where your alternatives are to hit them or go off the road then they *are* liable.
Indeed I've been there when I fell off a bike because of someone (doing an illegal u-turn in front of me) but there was no impact. Was settled 100% in my favor.
Indeed I've been there when I fell off a bike because of someone (doing an illegal u-turn in front of me) but there was no impact. Was settled 100% in my favor.
Chicken said:
Car C was oncoming, car B was pushed into her path by the collision. I'm not sure how you can say "if she were a better driver etc"
Instinctively you'd swerve but she should have just crashed into car B. Common around here (country area) for cars to be run off the road and there's never an repercussion for the other driver, even when identified. Happened to my wife (she hit a sandstone wall
) and our next-door neighbour.Fastdruid said:
I appreciate Zollar you are "in the business" but I disagree, if put in a situation by someone else where your alternatives are to hit them or go off the road then they *are* liable.
Indeed I've been there when I fell off a bike because of someone (doing an illegal u-turn in front of me) but there was no impact. Was settled 100% in my favor.
It's fine to disagree, liability isn't my area of expertise in insurance (it's my housemates, trys to keep me in check Indeed I've been there when I fell off a bike because of someone (doing an illegal u-turn in front of me) but there was no impact. Was settled 100% in my favor.
)All I know is the that is the defence Car As insurer would put up.
The outcomes do vary depending on many factors.
ZOLLAR said:
Outcome still the same, she swerved.
She swerved wholly to avoid someone else who had encroached on her path. See above for a case where a PHer had the same happen to him, where he didn't collide with the other party and where he got 100 percent back from the other party's insurer. Why do you (and Loon) have such a tendency to claim black/white distinctions in these things? Is it because you can't be bothered to type in an answer with any level of nuance?
Toltec said:
ZOLLAR said:
Outcome still the same, she swerved.
So you are only insured for damage directly caused by your vehicle rather than as a consequence of your actions? I appreciate this may not be the case every time, and sometimes you genuinely have no choice, but i think that's rare.
Also, if you don't hit the other party, you are relying on their honesty to claim off them. So A comes round the bend on the wrong side and forces B off the road into a lamppost. No collision between the 2. B says A forced him off the road. A says "nothing to do with me, I wasn't even involved. I was on my side of the road and they just lost control."
No independent evidence, A wins.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Toltec said:
ZOLLAR said:
Outcome still the same, she swerved.
So you are only insured for damage directly caused by your vehicle rather than as a consequence of your actions? I appreciate this may not be the case every time, and sometimes you genuinely have no choice, but i think that's rare.
Also, if you don't hit the other party, you are relying on their honesty to claim off them. So A comes round the bend on the wrong side and forces B off the road into a lamppost. No collision between the 2. B says A forced him off the road. A says "nothing to do with me, I wasn't even involved. I was on my side of the road and they just lost control."
No independent evidence, A wins.
Might still be a fight to prove couldn't have done something else but that'll depend on the exact circumstances.
Still goes to show that without a dash cam the best bet is to hit them.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Most of the time, people who end up with damage avoiding someone else are the authors of their own misfortune. They have reacted to someone else's mistake disproportionately and are trying to blame someone else for their own idiocy.
I appreciate this may not be the case every time, and sometimes you genuinely have no choice, but i think that's rare.
Also, if you don't hit the other party, you are relying on their honesty to claim off them. So A comes round the bend on the wrong side and forces B off the road into a lamppost. No collision between the 2. B says A forced him off the road. A says "nothing to do with me, I wasn't even involved. I was on my side of the road and they just lost control."
No independent evidence, A wins.
I was thinking more along the lines of car A hits wall, wall falls over into the path of car B which then hits the debris. Nothing to do with car A obviously, driver of B is negligent for not allowing for a wall falling into the road.I appreciate this may not be the case every time, and sometimes you genuinely have no choice, but i think that's rare.
Also, if you don't hit the other party, you are relying on their honesty to claim off them. So A comes round the bend on the wrong side and forces B off the road into a lamppost. No collision between the 2. B says A forced him off the road. A says "nothing to do with me, I wasn't even involved. I was on my side of the road and they just lost control."
No independent evidence, A wins.
Agree with the swerve and overreaction issue though.
EskimoArapaho said:
She swerved wholly to avoid someone else who had encroached on her path. See above for a case where a PHer had the same happen to him, where he didn't collide with the other party and where he got 100 percent back from the other party's insurer.
Why do you (and Loon) have such a tendency to claim black/white distinctions in these things? Is it because you can't be bothered to type in an answer with any level of nuance?
I can only imagine you struggled to read one of my previous posts so I've happily quoted it here for you.Why do you (and Loon) have such a tendency to claim black/white distinctions in these things? Is it because you can't be bothered to type in an answer with any level of nuance?
Note at the end I say the outcomes can vary depending on many factors only that my first response was the likely defense for Car As insurer.
ZOLLAR said:
It's fine to disagree, liability isn't my area of expertise in insurance (it's my housemates, trys to keep me in check )
All I know is the that is the defence Car As insurer would put up.
The outcomes do vary depending on many factors.
See, there it is right at the end. )All I know is the that is the defence Car As insurer would put up.
The outcomes do vary depending on many factors.
Proximate cause is hard to argue as previously stated because it tends to be difficult to prove. In this case there is an impact between two other vehicles so Car A's insurer cannot deny involvement, and as a direct result of Car A's actions Car C was involved. Id certainly try claiming back off Car A.
However it depends on Car A's defence. If the outlay isn't a lot and it costs more to litigate than what they would recover then they likely wont bother.
However it depends on Car A's defence. If the outlay isn't a lot and it costs more to litigate than what they would recover then they likely wont bother.
Chicken said:
Well that's as clear as mud
So, essentially, from your insurers perspective it's easier (although more dangerous) to hit the obstacle suddenly thrust into your path than to take avoiding action and damage your motor that way?
Imagine such crazy perspective. No different from those who say to stick religiously to the speed limit during an overtake even in the face of danger or travel at 40mph or less in lane 1 on a motorway just so you do not pass a car to your right.So, essentially, from your insurers perspective it's easier (although more dangerous) to hit the obstacle suddenly thrust into your path than to take avoiding action and damage your motor that way?
When faced with an accident in realtime who the hell would be thinking about insurance? Self preservation means you try to avoid hitting anything and will swerve if necessary.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff