Insurance Claim - Determining Fault
Discussion
I was recently involved in an accident where I was in the inside lane if a two lane roundabout, looking to go straight ahead. It's a classic 3,6,9,12 o'clock roundabout with two lanes all round. I was approaching at 6 o'clock, looking to exit at 12. Road markings are clear and as per high way code guidance so pretty standard.
Anyway, as I'm going straight ahead in lane 1 (maintaining lane discipline) this little scrote whizzes past out of nowhere in lane 2 and decides he wants the first exit at 9 o'clock. Bang.
Long story short, I take loads of photos but no dashcam or witnesses. I give insurer a detailed account along with all photos, Google maps/streetview images, damage photos the lot. My insurer is fighting my cause but reckons it'll be 50/50. However, this is based on the 3rd party not providing any information other than, "I moved into his lane". No photos, no account,zilch.
How is this possible? I appreciate it's difficult without CCTV or witnesses etc. but surely his refusal to provide any info is a red flag? Don't claim handlers use kinematics and the damage photos to calculate the most probable scenario?
Is there anything I can do? My car stalled as it happened so quickly and the photos, to me anyway, make it clear that kinematically it's impossible that I could've moved into his lane and ended up where I was. But I realise without witnesses I could've moved the car there. The damage, although clear that he was going faster and at a specific angle, could also have occurred at any point on the roundabout I guess.
I'm being philosophical about it but it's a bit frustrating that I might just have to suck it up. However, any tips would be appreciated, if anyone's been through this before. Thanks.
Anyway, as I'm going straight ahead in lane 1 (maintaining lane discipline) this little scrote whizzes past out of nowhere in lane 2 and decides he wants the first exit at 9 o'clock. Bang.
Long story short, I take loads of photos but no dashcam or witnesses. I give insurer a detailed account along with all photos, Google maps/streetview images, damage photos the lot. My insurer is fighting my cause but reckons it'll be 50/50. However, this is based on the 3rd party not providing any information other than, "I moved into his lane". No photos, no account,zilch.
How is this possible? I appreciate it's difficult without CCTV or witnesses etc. but surely his refusal to provide any info is a red flag? Don't claim handlers use kinematics and the damage photos to calculate the most probable scenario?
Is there anything I can do? My car stalled as it happened so quickly and the photos, to me anyway, make it clear that kinematically it's impossible that I could've moved into his lane and ended up where I was. But I realise without witnesses I could've moved the car there. The damage, although clear that he was going faster and at a specific angle, could also have occurred at any point on the roundabout I guess.
I'm being philosophical about it but it's a bit frustrating that I might just have to suck it up. However, any tips would be appreciated, if anyone's been through this before. Thanks.
My mum's (mercifully) ex partner had to fight one for about 3 years when a car came over the central line to avoid a parked car coming the other way. Somehow that was initially determined at 50/50 despite photo evidence of the other car over the white line. After arguing the toss over every single possible part of the claim from the other side (including questioning what time it happened because a bus drove past the scene with headlights on..) and being offered 50/50 on at least a dozen occasions, he chose to take it to court. Court date approached and the other insurer folded, accepted fault and it went from there. Bit of a headache going through it all but it was the right outcome, eventually. He stayed with the same insurers during that time and got a refund on increased premiums and his NCB reinstated, too.
RazerSauber said:
My mum's (mercifully) ex partner had to fight one for about 3 years when a car came over the central line to avoid a parked car coming the other way. Somehow that was initially determined at 50/50 despite photo evidence of the other car over the white line. After arguing the toss over every single possible part of the claim from the other side (including questioning what time it happened because a bus drove past the scene with headlights on..) and being offered 50/50 on at least a dozen occasions, he chose to take it to court. Court date approached and the other insurer folded, accepted fault and it went from there. Bit of a headache going through it all but it was the right outcome, eventually. He stayed with the same insurers during that time and got a refund on increased premiums and his NCB reinstated, too.
Curious, how did he get it to court? His insurer must've agreed that he was in the right and it was worth fighting? They make the decision as to court surely?
Crikey. That sounds like a nightmare but fair play for getting the right result.
I'm not sure I'd take it that far but understand it becomes a point of principle. That's what annoys me the most. I can write off the cash I've spent repairing the car and have since bought a dashcam but it still irks.
Although I'm amazed that this has only potentially taken 2 years off my no claims. I was expecting worse.
I'm not sure I'd take it that far but understand it becomes a point of principle. That's what annoys me the most. I can write off the cash I've spent repairing the car and have since bought a dashcam but it still irks.
Although I'm amazed that this has only potentially taken 2 years off my no claims. I was expecting worse.
OutInTheShed said:
How much damage is there?
The insurance industry is not there to determine the fault behind every little bump.
It's not actually the end of the world if it goes down as partly your fault.
New wing, front bumper, mirror, wheel and alignment issues (although I suspect it was just tracking). His car came off a lot worse!The insurance industry is not there to determine the fault behind every little bump.
It's not actually the end of the world if it goes down as partly your fault.
As above, no huge difference in no claims bonus (probably £100 max on my annual premium) so am being philosophical about it, if it doesn't go my way, but annoying. Thankfully I'm an old fecker nowadays so insurance is typically £200 with SAGA
I suspect without independent witnesses or dashcam footage it’ll be 50/50 even with all your work.
I had an incident with a bus on a big roundabout (Sheriffhall for anyone who knows it)
I was in lane 2 carrying on the bypass when a bus came from my left and cut right across the exit as I was turning. I took loads of pictures as you did of the layout but what swung it for me was the driver admitted to being in the wrong lane as ‘the bus was too big to stay in the correct lane’ (as per his statement which somehow we got sent)
We got 100% but even our insurance bod said that’s almost unknown in a roundabout accident. We had a change of contact half way through the case from someone who hadn’t a clue to someone coincidentally who uses that roundabout regularly and they were much more proactive.
It may well depend on how keen your contact is to fight the battle.
Someone hit me years ago, I was in the outside lane he pulled out into my rear end.
Insurance said likely 50/50, I just kicked off at them, as the only way that could be the case was if I’d reversed into him in the outside lane of the dual carriageway, which would be unlikely. They had another go and eventually the other side caved in.
Keep at them. Good luck.
Insurance said likely 50/50, I just kicked off at them, as the only way that could be the case was if I’d reversed into him in the outside lane of the dual carriageway, which would be unlikely. They had another go and eventually the other side caved in.
Keep at them. Good luck.
OutInTheShed said:
How much damage is there?
The insurance industry is not there to determine the fault behind every little bump.
It's not actually the end of the world if it goes down as partly your fault.
Surely the insurance industry IS there to determine the fault behind every little bump. Why wouldn’t they? Are they expected to roll over at each dispute of liability? The insurance industry is not there to determine the fault behind every little bump.
It's not actually the end of the world if it goes down as partly your fault.
KungFuPanda said:
OutInTheShed said:
How much damage is there?
The insurance industry is not there to determine the fault behind every little bump.
It's not actually the end of the world if it goes down as partly your fault.
Surely the insurance industry IS there to determine the fault behind every little bump. Why wouldn’t they? Are they expected to roll over at each dispute of liability? The insurance industry is not there to determine the fault behind every little bump.
It's not actually the end of the world if it goes down as partly your fault.
Easier to just do knock-for knock.
Most don't care.
I had a similar situation to the OP four years ago - elderly lady tried to leave the roundabout early from an inside lane and clipped the rear wing of my car.
I notified my insurers a couple of hours later - who told me that it would almost certainly be 50/50 - that roundabout incidents like this almost always were. Because the other party will simply claim that it was me who changed lane, and hit them.
I did have dash cam footage, which they said might avoid 50/50.
Fortunately, in my case the lady admitted liability - and her insurers called me that evening admitting liability. So everything went through them as a no fault claim (even though my insurers were notified).
I notified my insurers a couple of hours later - who told me that it would almost certainly be 50/50 - that roundabout incidents like this almost always were. Because the other party will simply claim that it was me who changed lane, and hit them.
I did have dash cam footage, which they said might avoid 50/50.
Fortunately, in my case the lady admitted liability - and her insurers called me that evening admitting liability. So everything went through them as a no fault claim (even though my insurers were notified).
CarCrazyDad said:
KungFuPanda said:
OutInTheShed said:
How much damage is there?
The insurance industry is not there to determine the fault behind every little bump.
It's not actually the end of the world if it goes down as partly your fault.
Surely the insurance industry IS there to determine the fault behind every little bump. Why wouldn’t they? Are they expected to roll over at each dispute of liability? The insurance industry is not there to determine the fault behind every little bump.
It's not actually the end of the world if it goes down as partly your fault.
Easier to just do knock-for knock.
Most don't care.
KungFuPanda said:
Surely the insurance industry IS there to determine the fault behind every little bump. Why wouldn’t they? Are they expected to roll over at each dispute of liability?
Because people want cheap insurance and so things have to be proportional. I’m not saying in this case they shouldn’t want to push for the TP paying 100%, albeit we are listening to one side of events. But there has to be a line somewhere at which point it is more costly to try and determine exact fault.
CarCrazyDad said:
KungFuPanda said:
Can you clarify what you believe knock for knock means in this instance?
Where it's 50/50 blame and insurance A pays for driver A and insurance B pays for driver B? Basically each repairer deals with their own clients damage and blame is attributed 50/50?
Knock for knock is where each insurer just pays for their own clients damage. This used to be done where insurers could not agree on liability, insurers used to have "knock for knock agreements" set up between themselves but as mentioned, knock for knock hasn't existed in car insurance for about 20 years.
48k said:
CarCrazyDad said:
KungFuPanda said:
Can you clarify what you believe knock for knock means in this instance?
Where it's 50/50 blame and insurance A pays for driver A and insurance B pays for driver B? Basically each repairer deals with their own clients damage and blame is attributed 50/50?
Knock for knock is where each insurer just pays for their own clients damage. This used to be done where insurers could not agree on liability, insurers used to have "knock for knock agreements" set up between themselves but as mentioned, knock for knock hasn't existed in car insurance for about 20 years.
48k said:
50/50 is called split liability. You can get other splits like 70/30 etc etc What that means is that both insurers agree to sum up the total cost of the claim and split the result out according to the percentage. So say for arguments sake car A has £2000 of damage and car B has £3000 of damage, if the insurers agree to go 50/50 then each insurer contributes £2500.
Knock for knock is where each insurer just pays for their own clients damage. This used to be done where insurers could not agree on liability, insurers used to have "knock for knock agreements" set up between themselves but as mentioned, knock for knock hasn't existed in car insurance for about 20 years.
Ah ok, thanks for updating me Knock for knock is where each insurer just pays for their own clients damage. This used to be done where insurers could not agree on liability, insurers used to have "knock for knock agreements" set up between themselves but as mentioned, knock for knock hasn't existed in car insurance for about 20 years.
Showing my age!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff