Insurance advice
Discussion
Afternoon gents, some advice regarding insurance liability please.
I was reversing out a driveway this weekend, across a cul-de-sac road, in doing so and due to the nature of the road in question (which is residential, has lots of obstacles) I do so rather slowly. The drive has a bush to the opposite site I was hit from, so you've gotta be careful there, and it drops down a bit so you have to be careful there's no kids on the kerb you reverse towards.
At a similar time as I reversed out, neighbour a couple of doors up reversed out, somewhat faster than I I'm guessing, as they weren't on the road when I checked in that direction. As I stop reversing out, and turn round what do I see? There car reversing up the road backwards into mine (which at that point was stationary). So my car is across the road blocking, and they reversed into the side of it (gently I hasten to add). He claimed his reversing sensors didn't work, even so he clearly wasn't looking in the direction his car was travelling.
Would I be correct in thinking that because there are no witnesses to events, and even though I was stationary and just putting my car into first to move forward I was still conducting a reversing out manoeuvre that this would be a split claim on the insurance front?
I was reversing out a driveway this weekend, across a cul-de-sac road, in doing so and due to the nature of the road in question (which is residential, has lots of obstacles) I do so rather slowly. The drive has a bush to the opposite site I was hit from, so you've gotta be careful there, and it drops down a bit so you have to be careful there's no kids on the kerb you reverse towards.
At a similar time as I reversed out, neighbour a couple of doors up reversed out, somewhat faster than I I'm guessing, as they weren't on the road when I checked in that direction. As I stop reversing out, and turn round what do I see? There car reversing up the road backwards into mine (which at that point was stationary). So my car is across the road blocking, and they reversed into the side of it (gently I hasten to add). He claimed his reversing sensors didn't work, even so he clearly wasn't looking in the direction his car was travelling.
Would I be correct in thinking that because there are no witnesses to events, and even though I was stationary and just putting my car into first to move forward I was still conducting a reversing out manoeuvre that this would be a split claim on the insurance front?
PurpleMoonlight said:
How far did the other driver reverse while you were stationary blocking the road?
Did you not notice him and sound your horn?
I'd estimate there is approximately 2 cars lengths between the drive he came from and the one I reversed out of. Did you not notice him and sound your horn?
RE: Horn, I went for the horn as soon as I clocked him reversing towards me, I hit it just as he made contact :-( In reality that was probably about a second or so.
You were both reversing so carrying out a potentially hazardous manoeuvre. If it could be proven with independent witness evidence that you were stationary when your neighbour hit you, I'd expect he'd be held 100% responsible. Unfortunately, given that there are no witnesses, I reckon you might have to accept a split liability decision.
Based on your story i'd expect him to be fully liable. Reversing sensors aren't a substitute for not looking out the back window and as you said, you were stationary and he drove into you.
However, he might tell his insurance company something different and / or they might dispute the claim and your insurance may settle it 50/50 if they can't determine the facts themself.
However, he might tell his insurance company something different and / or they might dispute the claim and your insurance may settle it 50/50 if they can't determine the facts themself.
dasbimmerowner said:
I'd estimate there is approximately 2 cars lengths between the drive he came from and the one I reversed out of.
RE: Horn, I went for the horn as soon as I clocked him reversing towards me, I hit it just as he made contact :-( In reality that was probably about a second or so.
Unless he admits liability, 50:50.RE: Horn, I went for the horn as soon as I clocked him reversing towards me, I hit it just as he made contact :-( In reality that was probably about a second or so.
PurpleMoonlight said:
dasbimmerowner said:
I'd estimate there is approximately 2 cars lengths between the drive he came from and the one I reversed out of.
RE: Horn, I went for the horn as soon as I clocked him reversing towards me, I hit it just as he made contact :-( In reality that was probably about a second or so.
Unless he admits liability, 50:50.RE: Horn, I went for the horn as soon as I clocked him reversing towards me, I hit it just as he made contact :-( In reality that was probably about a second or so.
If bumper to bumper it'll be hard to sor tout - if he's gone into somewhere else eg. door it'll be a lot easier
angrypirate said:
Just to clarify from your story, you were stationary and he went into the side of your car? Then he is 100% liable. Parking sensors are an aid and not a substitute for looking behind whilst reversing
Wouldn't it depend on how long stationary. If only a second or two then both vehicles were likely reversing at the same time. It could be argued the OP should have noticed the other vehicle earlier and stopped reversing.Remember insurers aren't interested in a forensic investigation. If neither party admits liability they almost certain to agree 50:50 for this.
In answer to the queries;
I was stationary for only a few seconds, I'd backed out, but then deemed I needed to go back a little further so released the clutch a little more and reversed slightly more (another couple of feet), then stopped. It was after this second movement he hit me.
His drivers side rear corner made contact with my drivers side rear wheel arch, missing the door by about an inch. Thus the position of contact was pretty much a T shape.
His view was that we were both reversing and thus it would be a 50:50 thing. Personally I think it's probably far more his fault, as I'm damn certain I was already partially in the road before his car left his driveway.
That said we've agreed to sort out our own cars in this instance, because although I think he's far more at fault I think the chances of the insurance coming to the same conclusion are slim, and it would cost me vastly more in premium increases than to simply get the car fixed.
I was stationary for only a few seconds, I'd backed out, but then deemed I needed to go back a little further so released the clutch a little more and reversed slightly more (another couple of feet), then stopped. It was after this second movement he hit me.
His drivers side rear corner made contact with my drivers side rear wheel arch, missing the door by about an inch. Thus the position of contact was pretty much a T shape.
His view was that we were both reversing and thus it would be a 50:50 thing. Personally I think it's probably far more his fault, as I'm damn certain I was already partially in the road before his car left his driveway.
That said we've agreed to sort out our own cars in this instance, because although I think he's far more at fault I think the chances of the insurance coming to the same conclusion are slim, and it would cost me vastly more in premium increases than to simply get the car fixed.
Edited by dasbimmerowner on Thursday 2nd June 08:17
PurpleMoonlight said:
Wouldn't it depend on how long stationary. If only a second or two then both vehicles were likely reversing at the same time. It could be argued the OP should have noticed the other vehicle earlier and stopped reversing.
Remember insurers aren't interested in a forensic investigation. If neither party admits liability they almost certain to agree 50:50 for this.
No - if you are stationary and a car goes into you it is their fault (ok, so maybe stopping half way out from a give way T-junction on a major may be deemed your fault)Remember insurers aren't interested in a forensic investigation. If neither party admits liability they almost certain to agree 50:50 for this.
You are right - insurers arent interested in a forensic investigation but they are companies looking to maximise profits. Customers come second. They will initially go for a 50-50 settlement by default because most insurers are underwritten by the same few companies and have every interest in minimising cost - ie maximising excess. If the OP pushes back, im sure the insurance company will come back fairly quickly and deem this to be the other party's fault.
Highway code rule 201 ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using... )
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."
Both failed to heed that advice, so the simple solution is to go 50/50.
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."
Both failed to heed that advice, so the simple solution is to go 50/50.
marshalla said:
Highway code rule 201 ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using... )
"Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."
Both failed to heed that advice, so the simple solution is to go 50/50.
Technically it's a cul-de-sac, so not a main road, but you're quite right, reverse in drive out would have prevented this happening."Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can."
Both failed to heed that advice, so the simple solution is to go 50/50.
angrypirate said:
No - if you are stationary and a car goes into you it is their fault (ok, so maybe stopping half way out from a give way T-junction on a major may be deemed your fault)
It's never so black and white unless you car is hit while parked. Your actions before becoming stationary are relevant.Indeed. It's highly annoying. It costs me any way I look at it, a non-fault claim would cost me over £200 in insurance increases this year alone (thanks to two other non-faults on my record in the last 24 months), so more like £400 over both policies I'm on in the period they'd count against me. A 50:50 decision by the insurers would see me paying more like £1300 extra over 5 years according to some theoretical quotes online. The damage costs about £550 to repair using a dealer bodyshop, so so if I can find a good indy I'd expect perhaps £400 or so.
dasbimmerowner said:
Excuse the child like image here, but these were the relative positions at the point of contact the X's denote which driveway each vehicle came from.
Is your car the blue blob? If so, is the damage consistent with how it would be expected from that drawing (i.e. the rear of the yellow car and bang in the middle of the blue car)? In order for the blue car to get into the position where the yellow car could hit it square on the side, the driver would have had to have reversed at quite some speed for the driver of the yellow car not to have time to react.Ganglandboss said:
Is your car the blue blob? If so, is the damage consistent with how it would be expected from that drawing (i.e. the rear of the yellow car and bang in the middle of the blue car)? In order for the blue car to get into the position where the yellow car could hit it square on the side, the driver would have had to have reversed at quite some speed for the driver of the yellow car not to have time to react.
The driver of the yellow car said his reverse sensors weren't working, so i'd assume they weren't looking where they were driving. If you're not looking for objects on the road, you're not going to be able to react regardless of how much time you have.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff