Insurance Q.

[cossy400]

Short story stepdaughter (SD) had bump late last yr 2013, case goin to court in March or was rather which brings me on to my Q.

His insurance are paying out her personal injury claim but not accepting liability for him shuntin her across the road.

How does that work please. or is this another case of how fking ridiculous the industry really is.

[ging84]

did her car then damage someone else car?
generally the way insurers tended to handle multi vehicle claims was on a knock on basis
which was fine years ago because claims histories and no claims bonuses weren't such a big deal, and establishing liability for damaged caused indirectly by another car is a lot harder than basing on on the car that actually directly impacted
Now and at fault claim plus the loss of no claim bonus can more than double someone's insurance for the next couple of years, this is why things are starting to change, and some insurers are looking to try and settle thing more fairly for their customers, but it's not become standard practice either yet, so that is probably why it is going to court

[martinbiz]

For what and why is it going to court?

[cossy400]

he came down the inside of a line of cars over hatched white lines and ploughed in to her as she was crossing.

Her personal claim was goin to court, as they were sayin its her fault blah blah they haven't even got in to the blame game for the wrote off car this is all to do with her personal claim.

Which his insurer has said they will pay her personal claim in full, ( bar about £150 IIRC)

But they have clearly stated that they are paying out but not accepting liability???


I just get the feeling its going to be yes were paying that but no were not paying the car which will screw her no claims

[Mr Happy]

Sounds to me like they're saying their driver is responsible for the injury caused, as he was the one that hit the car. However, they aren't saying that their driver was responsible for the accident.

I'm no lawyer but I'd probably put money on it going 50/50 on the damage going by the sound of it (I'm guessing she was travelling in the same direction as the other vehicle and turned 'across' it - so to speak, so had your daughter checked her nearside wing mirror, she wouldn't have moved the car into the path of the other vehicle, despite the fact that the other vehicle really shouldn't have been there in the first place).

That's just my interpretation though, and could be completely wrong in reality.

[catman]

Hatched lines don't always mean that you can't cross them, which may be why there's a dispute. If she turned across his path without checking, then it could be her fault.

Tim

[LoonR1]

ging84 said:

did her car then damage someone else car?
generally the way insurers tended to handle multi vehicle claims was on a knock on basis
which was fine years ago because claims histories and no claims bonuses weren't such a big deal, and establishing liability for damaged caused indirectly by another car is a lot harder than basing on on the car that actually directly impacted
Now and at fault claim plus the loss of no claim bonus can more than double someone's insurance for the next couple of years, this is why things are starting to change, and some insurers are looking to try and settle thing more fairly for their customers, but it's not become standard practice either yet, so that is probably why it is going to court

What a load of garbage. Seriously, as you clearly know nothing at all about insurance why give an answer.

"Knock on basis". I presume you mean "knock for knock", which has about as much to do with what you're talking about as boiled eggs do. Firstly knock for knock fell into disrepair in the late 1970s and secondly liability was still an issue and resolved back then. The knock for knock agreement was simply when insurers decided that the value of their fault and split accidents would roughly equal the cost of their non-fault claims. As such they figpured why spend time chasing down £n million whilst paying out £n million at the same time. It was operationally far more effective, assuming the claims did balance out.

The reason this has happened is stupid. I'm guessing the OP has Direct Line / Churchill / Priviliege or one of the same group involved as they do have a tendency for one department to settle an injury claim without telling the other department to settle the damage head of claim. It'll settle before court.

[cossy400]

Set the scene just to clear it up. single file traffic heading north for arguments sake. daughter comes south but needs to cross in a side road where she lives.

Car stood still in traffic leaves a clear gap indicating for her to cross as he cannot go forward, she edges across to get a clear view, she sets off but the bloke who is coming down over the hatched area is goin like merry hell, cleans her up and puts her car on what would be the exit side for the road she was entering.

police on the scene and in there report its saying he shouldn't of been there as it hatched etc.

But as we all know its your duty to check, which leads to me to my question of why pay out when lookin at the facts it could quite clearly go 50/50.

Im not after a big debate it just confuses me as to why they seem to feel the need to make it complicated.

And Loon ive read your posts plenty of times so i know you know your st lol

[LoonR1]

From that description I'd wonder why they've paid her injury claim at all. It should be at best a 50/50. What tends to happen is that injury is dealt with in a separate department to damage and that's where confusion like this kicks in.

However, now they've paid her injury claim, then it's a slam dunk for her in her favour, as courts tend not to like insurers making payments with strings and there's no way they can make a payment for injury successfully on a without prejudice basis.

Be thankful they've cocked up.

[ging84]

No I not talking about knock for knock am talking about, where 1 car hits another into another etc, and everyone ends up with an at fault claim except the last one. I was told this was referred to as knock on.

ps it good you are back

Edited by ging84 on Wednesday 31st December 20:03

[cossy400]

LoonR1 said:

From that description I'd wonder why they've paid her injury claim at all. It should be at best a 50/50. What tends to happen is that injury is dealt with in a separate department to damage and that's where confusion like this kicks in.

However, now they've paid her injury claim, then it's a slam dunk for her in her favour, as courts tend not to like insurers making payments with strings and there's no way they can make a payment for injury successfully on a without prejudice basis.

Be thankful they've cocked up.

Well shes accepted it as of yesterday so im told, so until it signed and sealed as such ill not hold my breath,

I normally deal with her insurance and sort it out come renewal but mrs400 put a stop to it the yr this happened as I was baby sitting her lol

[LoonR1]

ging84 said:

No I not talking about knock for knock am talking about, where 1 car hits another into another etc, and everyone ends up with an at fault claim except the last one. I was told this was referred to as knock on.

Well whoever told you that made it up, as its a shunt, concertina. There is no guarantee that the one at the back is at fault for the whole shunt either

[ging84]

LoonR1 said:

Well whoever told you that made it up, as its a shunt, concertina. There is no guarantee that the one at the back is at fault for the whole shunt either

No there is no guarantee but they normally didn't even used to consider they could be, even if they say took out a row of stationary cars

[LoonR1]

ging84 said:

LoonR1 said:

Well whoever told you that made it up, as its a shunt, concertina. There is no guarantee that the one at the back is at fault for the whole shunt either

No there is no guarantee but they normally didn't even used to consider they could be, even if they say took out a row of stationary cars

What?

[ging84]

LoonR1 said:

What?

What i am saying is, 10 years ago, if i'm driving car a and punted your car, car b, into car c, your insurer would fairly automatically accept liability for the damage to car c, but now there is a chance that car b's insurers will contest liability for the accident passing the liability back to to car a's insurers.

Which bit are you saying is wrong? that car b's insurers would normally have simply have accepted car c's claim in the past, or that now they might contest it?

doesn't really have anything to do with the original post any more, because doesn't sound like there was a 3rd car involved, so i am not too sure why being punted up the road was ever even mentioned if it didn't actually result in any further damage

[LoonR1]

ging84 said:

What i am saying is, 10 years ago, if i'm driving car a and punted your car, car b, into car c, your insurer would fairly automatically accept liability for the damage to car c, but now there is a chance that car b's insurers will contest liability for the accident passing the liability back to to car a's insurers.

Which bit are you saying is wrong? that car b's insurers would normally have simply have accepted car c's claim in the past, or that now they might contest it?

doesn't really have anything to do with the original post any more, because doesn't sound like there was a 3rd car involved, so i am not too sure why being punted up the road was ever even mentioned if it didn't actually result in any further damage

Still don't get it. In the situation you've described you're to blame for the damage to all three cars. You were driving car A and banged into car B (your fault) and pushed car B into car C (again your fault).

I can't see your point. Nothing at all has changed regarding liability whatsoever in the circumstances you've described. Even in the days of knock for knock, that was a financial process amd liability was still,investigated fully and apportioned accordingly.

[dacouch]

Sometimes Insurers pay out injury claims or damage claims without accepting liability where their own customer is not cooperating with them eg they have not reported the claim or have stopped contact with their Insurers when the Insurer suspect they are liable for the claim

[LoonR1]

dacouch said:

Sometimes Insurers pay out injury claims or damage claims without accepting liability where their own customer is not cooperating with them eg they have not reported the claim or have stopped contact with their Insurers when the Insurer suspect they are liable for the claim

And liability gets accepted too and the damage paid for. It makes no sense to dispute liability having made an injury payment.

[Slidingpillar]

When I was hit up the back, by a car that had also been hit, I was asked, did I feel one bump or two? Think about it and you'll see the thinking.

[LoonR1]

cossy400 said:

LoonR1 said:

From that description I'd wonder why they've paid her injury claim at all. It should be at best a 50/50. What tends to happen is that injury is dealt with in a separate department to damage and that's where confusion like this kicks in.

However, now they've paid her injury claim, then it's a slam dunk for her in her favour, as courts tend not to like insurers making payments with strings and there's no way they can make a payment for injury successfully on a without prejudice basis.

Be thankful they've cocked up.

Well shes accepted it as of yesterday so im told, so until it signed and sealed as such ill not hold my breath,

I normally deal with her insurance and sort it out come renewal but mrs400 put a stop to it the yr this happened as I was baby sitting her lol

Sorry just seen this. Have they paid her or not? Your OP suggests they have, now this just suggests that they've made an offer. That offer could well be made without prejudice / subject to liability being agreed. If she's not had the cash in her account, I'd refer you to the "50/50 at best" comment that I made.