Accident / insurance advice please...
Discussion
Hi guys
At the risk of starting a typical "My mate" thread, it would be great to get some advice from the legal / insurance experts on this forum...
A colleague of mine (he does exist & I'm looking at his ugly mug right now) was recently sort of involved in an accident. I'll explain the "sort of" below.
The situation was that he was driving to work in the rain along a fairly quick A road, came over a crest to find a queue of stationary traffic in front of him. He hit the brakes and unfortunately spun but didn't hit anything or cause any damage to his car. The car immediately behind him (Car A) did exactly the same, but unfortunately collected a car coming the other way (Car B), doing a fair bit of damage to both cars.
My colleague hung around & spoke to the police, gave his story etc. The police at the time were sympathetic and certainly didn't make any attempt to attribute blame and have not brought any charges.
He did not report the incident to his insurers as there was no damage to his car.
This was a couple of months ago and all was quiet until he go a letter out of the blue from the solicitors of Car B, blaming him for the accident and saying that Car A was trying to avoid him spinning and that this is what caused it all. They're claiming loads of costs from him, including whiplash & rehabilitation etc. The solicitors have quoted a police report which says that my colleague span on diesel, but have not given any reference to the cause of Car A's spin. I'm guessing that Car B has firstly tried to claim off Car A but got nowhere for some reason.
Anyone know where he stands now? Should he now report it to his insurers and let them fight it on his behalf? Should he just write back to the solicitors and flatly deny reponsibility? He obviously doesn't want to end up in court over this and also doesn't want his no claims knackered.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Cheers
Jim
At the risk of starting a typical "My mate" thread, it would be great to get some advice from the legal / insurance experts on this forum...
A colleague of mine (he does exist & I'm looking at his ugly mug right now) was recently sort of involved in an accident. I'll explain the "sort of" below.
The situation was that he was driving to work in the rain along a fairly quick A road, came over a crest to find a queue of stationary traffic in front of him. He hit the brakes and unfortunately spun but didn't hit anything or cause any damage to his car. The car immediately behind him (Car A) did exactly the same, but unfortunately collected a car coming the other way (Car B), doing a fair bit of damage to both cars.
My colleague hung around & spoke to the police, gave his story etc. The police at the time were sympathetic and certainly didn't make any attempt to attribute blame and have not brought any charges.
He did not report the incident to his insurers as there was no damage to his car.
This was a couple of months ago and all was quiet until he go a letter out of the blue from the solicitors of Car B, blaming him for the accident and saying that Car A was trying to avoid him spinning and that this is what caused it all. They're claiming loads of costs from him, including whiplash & rehabilitation etc. The solicitors have quoted a police report which says that my colleague span on diesel, but have not given any reference to the cause of Car A's spin. I'm guessing that Car B has firstly tried to claim off Car A but got nowhere for some reason.
Anyone know where he stands now? Should he now report it to his insurers and let them fight it on his behalf? Should he just write back to the solicitors and flatly deny reponsibility? He obviously doesn't want to end up in court over this and also doesn't want his no claims knackered.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Cheers
Jim
Tell 'em to get stuffed. If Car A had been leaving a big enough gap (as is their duty), they'd have never had to avoid your mate, and (arguably) wouldn't have spun themselves.
It's not like your mate pulled out of a junction where Car A had right of way, or otherwise performed an illegal manoeuvre.
It's not like your mate pulled out of a junction where Car A had right of way, or otherwise performed an illegal manoeuvre.
Ah the old reliable defence of "He'd never have spun if he'd been driving sensibly and had room to stop, and then he wouldn't have hit anybody else while avoiding me spinning because I couldn't stop because I wasn't... no hang on..."
A guaranteed winner that one...
I do agree that the fact that he couldn't stop in time is entirely his fault, and not your colleagues - you just have to be careful how you play that because a barrister would try to take that apart in court and show that your colleage should maybe be held at least partly to blame because he wasn't in control either.
A guaranteed winner that one...
I do agree that the fact that he couldn't stop in time is entirely his fault, and not your colleagues - you just have to be careful how you play that because a barrister would try to take that apart in court and show that your colleage should maybe be held at least partly to blame because he wasn't in control either.
That's a tricky one. Obviously car B wants to claim off of somebody as the innocent party.
Did car A actually pass your mate to avoid rear ending? If he had rear ended his car, presumably car A would be held responsible. But because he swerved and managed to avoid him, does this make your mate partly liable for car A's avoidance course that took him into the path of car B? If car A wasn't forced to pass your mates car, then I think full liability would be on car A, and probably is anyway.
I think he should have a word with his insurance company who hopefully will have some good legal bods on board.
Did car A actually pass your mate to avoid rear ending? If he had rear ended his car, presumably car A would be held responsible. But because he swerved and managed to avoid him, does this make your mate partly liable for car A's avoidance course that took him into the path of car B? If car A wasn't forced to pass your mates car, then I think full liability would be on car A, and probably is anyway.
I think he should have a word with his insurance company who hopefully will have some good legal bods on board.
jimbobs said:
Hi guys
At the risk of starting a typical "My mate" thread, it would be great to get some advice from the legal / insurance experts on this forum...
A colleague of mine (he does exist & I'm looking at his ugly mug right now) was recently sort of involved in an accident. I'll explain the "sort of" below.
The situation was that he was driving to work in the rain along a fairly quick A road, came over a crest to find a queue of stationary traffic in front of him. He hit the brakes and unfortunately spun but didn't hit anything or cause any damage to his car. The car immediately behind him (Car A) did exactly the same, but unfortunately collected a car coming the other way (Car B), doing a fair bit of damage to both cars.
My colleague hung around & spoke to the police, gave his story etc. The police at the time were sympathetic and certainly didn't make any attempt to attribute blame and have not brought any charges.
He did not report the incident to his insurers as there was no damage to his car.
This was a couple of months ago and all was quiet until he go a letter out of the blue from the solicitors of Car B, blaming him for the accident and saying that Car A was trying to avoid him spinning and that this is what caused it all. They're claiming loads of costs from him, including whiplash & rehabilitation etc. The solicitors have quoted a police report which says that my colleague span on diesel, but have not given any reference to the cause of Car A's spin. I'm guessing that Car B has firstly tried to claim off Car A but got nowhere for some reason.
At the risk of starting a typical "My mate" thread, it would be great to get some advice from the legal / insurance experts on this forum...
A colleague of mine (he does exist & I'm looking at his ugly mug right now) was recently sort of involved in an accident. I'll explain the "sort of" below.
The situation was that he was driving to work in the rain along a fairly quick A road, came over a crest to find a queue of stationary traffic in front of him. He hit the brakes and unfortunately spun but didn't hit anything or cause any damage to his car. The car immediately behind him (Car A) did exactly the same, but unfortunately collected a car coming the other way (Car B), doing a fair bit of damage to both cars.
My colleague hung around & spoke to the police, gave his story etc. The police at the time were sympathetic and certainly didn't make any attempt to attribute blame and have not brought any charges.
He did not report the incident to his insurers as there was no damage to his car.
This was a couple of months ago and all was quiet until he go a letter out of the blue from the solicitors of Car B, blaming him for the accident and saying that Car A was trying to avoid him spinning and that this is what caused it all. They're claiming loads of costs from him, including whiplash & rehabilitation etc. The solicitors have quoted a police report which says that my colleague span on diesel, but have not given any reference to the cause of Car A's spin. I'm guessing that Car B has firstly tried to claim off Car A but got nowhere for some reason.
Even if Car A-1 spun on diesel but still did not hit anything... I would think it difficult to prove he "caused" anything. I think ist probable that Car A hit the same diesel slick. If one hit a diesel slick und spun ..then likely that following car would have hit same slick. The difference would be in car handling. Sound like Car A try to say your friend caused it to get out of blame - und his insurers back. But normally if the insurers fail to negotiate with one word against the other - they go to court where the courts may apply 50/50 or 40/60 etc liablity - dependent on what they are told by each party. Could be Car A insurers successfully fought claim by Car B's insurers based on what Car A told insurers.
Go tell your pal to take some photos of the site... prefereably with a similar queue of traffic und oncoming cars if possible. It may be afet the event.. but then the police used a helicopter to show how dangerous eating an apple could be on a certain road after the event
This will clarify scene of the incident. He should submit these photos if things take a nasty turn. He also spoke to the police. This should also be on record und available to provide proof of his innocence.
Und he needs to inform his insurers .. und give them both video und photographic evidence should this be necessary. They are seeking compo und repairs from your pal's insurers. I wonder if Car A/B are fully comp too..
jimbobs said:
Anyone know where he stands now? Should he now report it to his insurers and let them fight it on his behalf? Should he just write back to the solicitors and flatly deny reponsibility? He obviously doesn't want to end up in court over this and also doesn't want his no claims knackered.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Cheers
Jim
He should inform his insurers if fully comp und if he paid a legal sub as well. His insurers will speak to these people on his behalf und he will have to fill in the forms und diagram.. hence a photo - showing a similar scene -will help as well.
Bear in mind .. his witness statement/no charges to the police will count in his favour as well. He pulled up - hit nothing und the driver immediately behind came across same situation but was unlucky enough to prang another on-coming car. Was this car near centre marks? Could he have been further to the left?
Tell him to think hard about positions of these cars and to bear in mind what he told police as well
Cars A and B should have been able to stop in the distance they could see to be safe. Your colleague made a better job of controlling the skid, that's all. Has your colleague got legal protection on his policy? He probably just needs to invoke it to tell the chancer of a solicitor where to go.
The fact that the police didn't press charges goes strongly in his favour.
The fact that the police didn't press charges goes strongly in his favour.
Erm ....
.... I know that this specualtion is interesting from some points of view, but the advice your colleague should get is to immediately contact his insurers.
He should make notes on what he remembers of the incident now and any details that were recorded at the time.
From then on in, let the insurers deal with it.
.... I know that this specualtion is interesting from some points of view, but the advice your colleague should get is to immediately contact his insurers.
He should make notes on what he remembers of the incident now and any details that were recorded at the time.
From then on in, let the insurers deal with it.
J1mmyD said:
Erm ....
.... I know that this specualtion is interesting from some points of view, but the advice your colleague should get is to immediately contact his insurers.
He should make notes on what he remembers of the incident now and any details that were recorded at the time.
From then on in, let the insurers deal with it.
.... I know that this specualtion is interesting from some points of view, but the advice your colleague should get is to immediately contact his insurers.
He should make notes on what he remembers of the incident now and any details that were recorded at the time.
From then on in, let the insurers deal with it.
Agreed. Part of most peoples insurance policy is that on no account should they admit liability. Being drawn into replying in any way only weakens your position.
If my house got burnt down I would ring my insurance company rather then fight out the case with regard to who is liable for the fire...
The same is true here, this is exactly why we have car insurance, so you *dont* have to pay in this kind of scenario. Hand it over to them and let them worry about paying up as it will be their money that pays it out. My guess is that they are just trying it on. The guys car was obviously not in control and obviously was not leaving the correct stopping distance etc... In almost every case this should go the way of blame of a rear end shunt, that is the 'shunter' is the one who had the choice to leave the appropriate distance regardless of the actions of the car in front.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff