Who's at fault

[Marcellus]

Wonder if you guys can help on this one;

> A friend recently pulled up behind a car turning right.

> The car turning right was a quarter of the way into the other direction lane.

> A car was coming the other way so the car turning right thought they'd best reverse out of the lane and back into theirs.

> Straight into my friends car behind.

So what settlement would the insurers likely make?

The reason I ask is that I was always told, on various driving courses, that whatever the reason if the rear of a car hits the front of yours then you would not be blameless.

[ganglandboss]

It depends on whose version of events is agreed but if it is settled as you describe the event, your mate will not be responsible. If you reverse into someone, it's your fault.

[Marcellus]

At the scene the guy (old bloke not that it matters) was very apologetic and admited liability in offerring to settle in cash!!

[mark69sheer]

If you could get him to settle in cash then that would be the best way.
Despite what the old man said the insurers will when it comes to the crunch accuse your friend of running into the back of the old man.

I had a case where my wife was sat stationary at red traffic lights.
A car ran into the back of her.

An open and shut case you would have thought.

Except we received a letter from the other guys insurers claiming the lights were on green and my wife suddenly stopped.
They therefore claimed my wife was responsible.

There were two policemen walking nearby at the time and my wife asked the guy if they should be told...oh no he said we don't need to tell them.

[ganglandboss]

Marcellus said:

At the scene the guy (old bloke not that it matters) was very apologetic and admited liability in offerring to settle in cash!!

If your mate is happy with that, I'd do it. Then there's no record on his insurance of an accident. Even non-fault accidents affect your premium.

Make sure he gets an accurate price for the work and that the gentleman at fault books the car in at the bodyshop though, that way your mate won't be left with the bill if he goes back on his word.

[Piglet]

ganglandboss said:

Marcellus said:

At the scene the guy (old bloke not that it matters) was very apologetic and admited liability in offerring to settle in cash!!

If your mate is happy with that, I'd do it. Then there's no record on his insurance of an accident. Even non-fault accidents affect your premium.

If insurers ask "have you had any accident, claim or conviction" the OP's wife would still have to say "yes" regardless of whether a claim, fault or no fault was submitted to her insurers or whether the TP paid direct.

[TPS]

Piglet said:

ganglandboss said:

Marcellus said:

At the scene the guy (old bloke not that it matters) was very apologetic and admited liability in offerring to settle in cash!!

If your mate is happy with that, I'd do it. Then there's no record on his insurance of an accident. Even non-fault accidents affect your premium.

If insurers ask "have you had any accident, claim or conviction" the OP's wife would still have to say "yes" regardless of whether a claim, fault or no fault was submitted to her insurers or whether the TP paid direct.

This is true and speaking from experiance your insurance can go up a bit as well.

As for who is to blame.That would be the driver that reversed into you.However even though the driver addmited blame at the scene you would be amazed how many people change their mind and deny blame once they get home.Also insurance companys state not to admit liability on most of the paperwork you get when you take out a policy.

[Ballon]

I believe it is fraught with danger going down the 'settle in cash route'

There is no guarantee that the other party will pay and it often indicates no insurance.

Also the fact that no claim has been made to the insurance company does not mean that it is not declareable on yor next proposal form. All motor insurers participate in the 'Motor insurers database' which keeps a record of all reported claims, not just paid claims. If the fact that you did not mention a claim comes to light at a later date it can have serious repurcussions, possibly non payment of a serious claim or great difficulty in obtaining insurance.

[Noger]

Hitting someone in the rear is not always a sign of liability. In fact an awful lot of fraud is committed this way, by the party in front doing a slam on at a roundabout, and the 4 people in the car (who magically appear) all claiming whiplash. Some roundabouts are agressively "farmed" for this.

[SLCZ3]

mark69sheer said:

If you could get him to settle in cash then that would be the best way.
Despite what the old man said the insurers will when it comes to the crunch accuse your friend of running into the back of the old man.

I had a case where my wife was sat stationary at red traffic lights.
A car ran into the back of her.

An open and shut case you would have thought.

Except we received a letter from the other guys insurers claiming the lights were on green and my wife suddenly stopped.
They therefore claimed my wife was responsible.There were two policemen walking nearby at the time and my wife asked the guy if they should be told...oh no he said we don't need to tell them.

This one is easy, retort to insurance should have been, the guy was obviously going too fast and too close to stop safely when your wife stopped. Therefore he was at fault, irrespective of any reason for your wife supposedly suddenly stopping.

[japhilip]

Similar thing happened to my GF a few years ago. Waiting in a line of traffic at lights (slight uphill), with handbrake on.

Person in front (female also) was holding her car on the footbrake, and rolled back into the GF's car. The other driver got out, complaining about the GF driving into the back of her.

Unfortunately, it was one word against the other, and our limp wristed insurance company didn't contest the other claim.

Not sure I'd take the cash in the OP's case, since the other party has already admitted liability at the scene. HOwever, the claim will go on youre mate's record I think, even if not at fault.