low speed collision advice
Discussion
Just after advice as to how to proceed.
3 vehicle collision, no injuries. Car 1 stopped and Car 2(wife) went into back car 1, then when car 2 staionary car 3 went into back of car 2. Car 1 stopped due to idiot infront of her stopping suddenly. Need to check dash cam when i am home. No injuries. Front bumper of my wifes car is damaged and possibley bits behind it and needs stripping down. Sounds like I need to go via insurance to get it fixed. Car 1 minimal damage and owner not to bothered. Minimal damage to rear bumper from car 3. So its all about how to proceed with getting the front of wifes car fixed. New to all this so any advice would be great.
3 vehicle collision, no injuries. Car 1 stopped and Car 2(wife) went into back car 1, then when car 2 staionary car 3 went into back of car 2. Car 1 stopped due to idiot infront of her stopping suddenly. Need to check dash cam when i am home. No injuries. Front bumper of my wifes car is damaged and possibley bits behind it and needs stripping down. Sounds like I need to go via insurance to get it fixed. Car 1 minimal damage and owner not to bothered. Minimal damage to rear bumper from car 3. So its all about how to proceed with getting the front of wifes car fixed. New to all this so any advice would be great.
KungFuPanda said:
Sounds like your wife needs to claim off her own insurance as she went into the back of Car 1 causing the damage to the front of her own car. If there’s any damage to the back of her car, she’ll have to claim from Car 3 for that damage only.
^^This. Car 1 is the only no fault vehicle.My wife did similar in Oct 21. Still an ongoing claim/not closed. Low speed traffic queue, minor scuff on the front bumper which was repainted.
She was the 3rd person and went into the back of car 2 in the middle. Car 1 also stopped suddenly as OP but Car 1 is putting in claims for whiplash/unable to work etc.
Insurance have treated as my wife (Car 3) at fault for Car 2, Car 2 at fault for Car 1 (front). Oddly Car 2 had the same accident 3 months prior, wife never had an accident.
She was the 3rd person and went into the back of car 2 in the middle. Car 1 also stopped suddenly as OP but Car 1 is putting in claims for whiplash/unable to work etc.
Insurance have treated as my wife (Car 3) at fault for Car 2, Car 2 at fault for Car 1 (front). Oddly Car 2 had the same accident 3 months prior, wife never had an accident.
DaGuv said:
Update. I have seen the dash cam and it’s shows a very slow impact to car 1. Then when car 3 hits my wife the impact is much greater. So presume that has caused the damage to the front of my wife’s car. Cracked lights etc and maybe more so will claim off car 3.
Obviously, you’ll have to expect the insurers of Car 3 to push back and say that the majority of the frontal damage was caused by the initial impact. However if the dashcam footage shows it as you describe, you’ll probably have an easier ride.Youll struggle to claim any front damage from the rear vehicle, as you have no proof of what damage was done from the first impact.
If it was that easy, you could then try and argue that the vehicle at the front should claim some of the damage from the rear vehicle as well.
Contact your insurers, they will take your car for repair, they will get 2 seperate estimates done, and they will then claim the rear damage from the vehicle at the rear.
If it was that easy, you could then try and argue that the vehicle at the front should claim some of the damage from the rear vehicle as well.
Contact your insurers, they will take your car for repair, they will get 2 seperate estimates done, and they will then claim the rear damage from the vehicle at the rear.
Not a surprise.
My Managing Director came into the office one morning a few years ago and asked me to help him sort out an insurance claim for him.
He had been hit up the rear by another car on the A14, and it had done a modest amount of damage to his Audi A6 estate.
The car was two years old.
I had a quick look, noticed that the damage extended up as far as the rear wheel arch, and told him it would be a write off, as the boot floor would be twisted.
He as good as said I didn't know what I was talking about, he could still close the tailgate.
Two weeks later the estimate was over £10,000 and the insurers wrote the £18,000 car off.
The logic is that by the time you factor in car hire and scrappage value, and possible further issues the estimator might have missed, it wasn't worth risking the repair.
I smiled my "I told you so" smile, and ever since I have done all the car buying in that company.
My Managing Director came into the office one morning a few years ago and asked me to help him sort out an insurance claim for him.
He had been hit up the rear by another car on the A14, and it had done a modest amount of damage to his Audi A6 estate.
The car was two years old.
I had a quick look, noticed that the damage extended up as far as the rear wheel arch, and told him it would be a write off, as the boot floor would be twisted.
He as good as said I didn't know what I was talking about, he could still close the tailgate.
Two weeks later the estimate was over £10,000 and the insurers wrote the £18,000 car off.
The logic is that by the time you factor in car hire and scrappage value, and possible further issues the estimator might have missed, it wasn't worth risking the repair.
I smiled my "I told you so" smile, and ever since I have done all the car buying in that company.
DaGuv said:
I did the claim online with admiral and seconds later I got an email stating the car is a total loss. WTF!
Standard response from Admiral for anything beyond the most minor damage.Salvage fetches very good money these days, especially if the damage is very light, and with hire car costs etc its easier and cheaper for them to write it off and pay out straight away and move on than faff about with repairers.
Update again. I ticked the box saying damage underneath on the online claims form. There is no obvious damage underneath so claim has been amended. Car will now be repaired and we get a courtesy car. We are liable as can’t prove if damaged was caused by first or second impact.
Edited by DaGuv on Wednesday 21st June 14:19
car 3 may not have been negligent at all, and if so, will be claiming off you not the other way around.
for example, if you were following someone at 30 with the correct gap (2 seconds is generally considered to be acceptable in the dry) and that car suddenly became stationary (due to hitting something), you'd be unable to stop in time. That is the fault of the car in front that hit something, not yourself.
Who knows how that'll fall here, but its not as clear-cut as some make out
for example, if you were following someone at 30 with the correct gap (2 seconds is generally considered to be acceptable in the dry) and that car suddenly became stationary (due to hitting something), you'd be unable to stop in time. That is the fault of the car in front that hit something, not yourself.
Who knows how that'll fall here, but its not as clear-cut as some make out
5lab said:
car 3 may not have been negligent at all, and if so, will be claiming off you not the other way around.
for example, if you were following someone at 30 with the correct gap (2 seconds is generally considered to be acceptable in the dry) and that car suddenly became stationary (due to hitting something), you'd be unable to stop in time. That is the fault of the car in front that hit something, not yourself.
Who knows how that'll fall here, but its not as clear-cut as some make out
If you collide with a stationary object, it's generally accepted it's your fault.for example, if you were following someone at 30 with the correct gap (2 seconds is generally considered to be acceptable in the dry) and that car suddenly became stationary (due to hitting something), you'd be unable to stop in time. That is the fault of the car in front that hit something, not yourself.
Who knows how that'll fall here, but its not as clear-cut as some make out
emperorburger said:
5lab said:
car 3 may not have been negligent at all, and if so, will be claiming off you not the other way around.
for example, if you were following someone at 30 with the correct gap (2 seconds is generally considered to be acceptable in the dry) and that car suddenly became stationary (due to hitting something), you'd be unable to stop in time. That is the fault of the car in front that hit something, not yourself.
Who knows how that'll fall here, but its not as clear-cut as some make out
If you collide with a stationary object, it's generally accepted it's your fault.for example, if you were following someone at 30 with the correct gap (2 seconds is generally considered to be acceptable in the dry) and that car suddenly became stationary (due to hitting something), you'd be unable to stop in time. That is the fault of the car in front that hit something, not yourself.
Who knows how that'll fall here, but its not as clear-cut as some make out
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff