Insurance issue

[Ernst Blofeld]

I was unlucky enough to have a lorry driver roll into my car at a set of traffic lights middle of last year. He damaged the wheel, wing, bumper, door, bonnet. I was turning left at the lights behind the lorry. The lorry almost ran into a bus but stopped suddenly and then rolled backwards 5 or 10 feet to let the bus go. Unfortunately he forgot to look behind him. He rolled into the front side of my car starting just in front of the wheel and running back. I had my hand welded to the horn before, during and after the accident.

Now, being the professional that he was, he drove away from the scene, I was driving behind flashing my lights, honking my horn and leaning out the window - he noticed none of this. At a traffic queue half a mile up the road I got out and went up to his window. He admitted rolling backwards but denied any of the brand new scrapes all over the front of my car were anything to do with him. He got out of the vehicle and we reported everything to both insurance companies.

Long story short... the insurance company covering the lorry wouldn't pay out. They believed it was ok to depend on the drivers assertion that he hadn’t been involved. I went round and round in circles chasing the insurance company and eventually gave up after about 4 months.

Today, I phoned them up to see how they were getting on. They said because they have not handled this claim properly they are prepared to pay out. They want to send an engineer out to inspect my car. Trouble is, because the car was so badly damaged I couldn't continue to drive it seriously or enjoy owning it. I also couldn't keep it indefinitely while they worked their skit out. So I scrapped it. Couldn't be sold like it was and would have cost too much to repair.

So what do I do now? I'm obviously still owed for the damage and the loss. But if they can't inspect the car they might use that as an excuse not to pay out? Does anyone know what the rules are under these circumstances?

[Ernst Blofeld]

I know it's a boring thread. But can anyone help?

[nsmith1180]

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

[Vixpy1]

nsmith1180 said:

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

eh?

Hows that work then

[anonymous-user]

Rolled 5 to 10 feet back into him. Yeah, that's his fault

I have no experience of this but if you have good pictures of the damage from a number of angles you could possibly try getting a payout of some sort from them that way?

[Muzzer]

nsmith1180 said:

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

How do you work that out??

So if I'm sitting in traffic, someone rolls back into me and I have nowhere to go, it's my fault?

OP - the insurance company will need to inspect the car as evidence of what was wrong with it before paying out.

If you no longer have the car or the means to get it back, you'll get nothing I'm afraid.

[nsmith1180]

Muzzer said:

nsmith1180 said:

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

How do you work that out??

So if I'm sitting in traffic, someone rolls back into me and I have nowhere to go, it's my fault?

OP - the insurance company will need to inspect the car as evidence of what was wrong with it before paying out.

If you no longer have the car or the means to get it back, you'll get nothing I'm afraid.

Its a simple thing to work out.

The front end of OPs car, hit the back end of Lorry. In any insurers books thats the fault of the car behind because he was too close or couldnt stop.


Doesnt matter if he was to close or not. Thems the rules and any insurer will stick to them like glue so they dont have to pay out.

[Mattt]

I dare say any payout you may get will be less than the additional premiums you will now pay.

[Vixpy1]

nsmith1180 said:

Muzzer said:

nsmith1180 said:

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

How do you work that out??

So if I'm sitting in traffic, someone rolls back into me and I have nowhere to go, it's my fault?

OP - the insurance company will need to inspect the car as evidence of what was wrong with it before paying out.

If you no longer have the car or the means to get it back, you'll get nothing I'm afraid.

Its a simple thing to work out.

The front end of OPs car, hit the back end of Lorry. In any insurers books thats the fault of the car behind because he was too close or couldnt stop.


Doesnt matter if he was to close or not. Thems the rules and any insurer will stick to them like glue so they dont have to pay out.

Rubbish

[nsmith1180]

Vixpy1 said:

nsmith1180 said:

Muzzer said:

nsmith1180 said:

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

How do you work that out??

So if I'm sitting in traffic, someone rolls back into me and I have nowhere to go, it's my fault?

OP - the insurance company will need to inspect the car as evidence of what was wrong with it before paying out.

If you no longer have the car or the means to get it back, you'll get nothing I'm afraid.

Its a simple thing to work out.

The front end of OPs car, hit the back end of Lorry. In any insurers books thats the fault of the car behind because he was too close or couldnt stop.


Doesnt matter if he was to close or not. Thems the rules and any insurer will stick to them like glue so they dont have to pay out.

Rubbish

Fact of life. Insurers are bds. They take your money willingly then dont pay out if they can avoid it. If I were a loss adjuster here, I would fall back on the you were too close cop out. Im sure if I can do it, they can.

[iggletiggle]

nsmith1180 said:

Vixpy1 said:

nsmith1180 said:

Muzzer said:

nsmith1180 said:

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

How do you work that out??

So if I'm sitting in traffic, someone rolls back into me and I have nowhere to go, it's my fault?

OP - the insurance company will need to inspect the car as evidence of what was wrong with it before paying out.

If you no longer have the car or the means to get it back, you'll get nothing I'm afraid.

Its a simple thing to work out.

The front end of OPs car, hit the back end of Lorry. In any insurers books thats the fault of the car behind because he was too close or couldnt stop.


Doesnt matter if he was to close or not. Thems the rules and any insurer will stick to them like glue so they dont have to pay out.

Rubbish

Fact of life. Insurers are bds. They take your money willingly then dont pay out if they can avoid it. If I were a loss adjuster here, I would fall back on the you were too close cop out. Im sure if I can do it, they can.

Unfortunately he is correct.. i am surprised they are even bothering to still deal with it - I would expect to see the insurers say it was your fault as teh lorry driver will simply claim you drove into the back of him.

Good Luck.

[Gallen]

nsmith1180 said:

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

very helpful. also bullcrap

[omgus]

Muzzer said:

OP - the insurance company will need to inspect the car as evidence of what was wrong with it before paying out.

If you no longer have the car or the means to get it back, you'll get nothing I'm afraid.

OP he has a point and therefore i hope you have photos/repair quotes to back up your claims.

nsmith1180 said:

Its a simple thing to work out.

The front end of OPs car, hit the back end of Lorry. In any insurers books thats the fault of the car behind because he was too close or couldnt stop.


Doesnt matter if he was to close or not. Thems the rules and any insurer will stick to them like glue so they dont have to pay out.

As told to you by the man in the pub? There are a number of reasons that can cause an insurance company to pay out to the party at the rear, a lorry rolling 10+ foot backwards is not the fault of the OP.

[C8PPO]

Notwithstanding the question of blame, I can't honestly see how you can expect to get anything at all in the absence of a vehicle to inspect - a position which you have put yourself in, regardless of the history.

Ernst said:

My car was worth £5k before the accident. The accident caused £2k worth of damage but I scrapped it for £100 because I needed to get to work. Therefore I'm £4900 down. Cough up please.

Insurer said:

In our opinion our liability to repair the damage would have been £300 max but you've prevented us from proving that. Goodbye.

(Or, if you're lucky, "here's a £50 goodwill cheque". But probably not.)

Edited by C8PPO on Wednesday 26th May 18:13

[Ernst Blofeld]

The lorry hit the front corner of my car. The damage started just in front of the drivers wheel. So I was turning and the nose of my car would've been visible in the lorry drivers mirrors if he was using them. Of course, he could've just slipped off the clutch or something - I don't know how lorrys work? He was not reversing, just rolling back.

So really fault is not disputed and I don't need any help on that side of things. I have a wittness statement and loads of photos of the damage and photos of the lorry. I also have a squiggle on a bit of paper that is supposed to be the lorry drivers signature where he signed to say he had been there at the time.

Really, the only problem I have is that I no longer have the car! But that is their fault for taking so long over sorting out the claim. It wasn't possible to keep the car hanging around just in case they suddenly got their finger out - there are only so many places you can store a car that's not being used... and I ran out of places a long time ago.

A friend told me that really, they should've sent their engineer out within 28 days to inspect the car. So in theory, an inspection isn't necessary... but then that comes down to legal stuff and insurance rules that I know nothing about.

[omgus]

Try asking this in the Speed, Plod and Law section, some very good advice in there, or peppipoo (spl) lots of clever legal geeks on that forum.

[Ernst Blofeld]

Can't do that with a new username.

Someone where I asked on another forum said they had a similar problem. He got his solicitor involved and the solicitor told the insurance company they had not conducted their inspection within a reasonable time so that is their tough luck. Similar to what a friend of mine had said.

I guess this is going to be the best route for a successful outcome. I have photos, estimate, witness and they didn't inspect the car within a reasonable time so now they will just have to pay the estimate for the repair / value of the car before the accident - less anything I might have got in scrap value.

[anonymous-user]

If you have photos showing the number plate and an damage estimate with the reg number on, I say go after them with a solicitor. Just be sure you'll actually gain money once you've paid the solicitor fees.

[Muzzer]

nsmith1180 said:

Vixpy1 said:

nsmith1180 said:

Muzzer said:

nsmith1180 said:

Erm, he rolled back in to you. You were too close. Its your fault.
Drop it if I were you.

How do you work that out??

So if I'm sitting in traffic, someone rolls back into me and I have nowhere to go, it's my fault?

OP - the insurance company will need to inspect the car as evidence of what was wrong with it before paying out.

If you no longer have the car or the means to get it back, you'll get nothing I'm afraid.

Its a simple thing to work out.

The front end of OPs car, hit the back end of Lorry. In any insurers books thats the fault of the car behind because he was too close or couldnt stop.


Doesnt matter if he was to close or not. Thems the rules and any insurer will stick to them like glue so they dont have to pay out.

Rubbish

Fact of life. Insurers are bds. They take your money willingly then dont pay out if they can avoid it. If I were a loss adjuster here, I would fall back on the you were too close cop out. Im sure if I can do it, they can.

What a complete load of bks.

I think you're assuming that the OP hit the lorry from behind, in which case he would be at fault.

But the OP clearly states that the lorry backed into him after re-thinking a manouevre. Reversing into someone, last time I checked, makes the lorry driver liable.

By your theory, if I stop at a junction behind someone I should leave a gap in case they reverse into me. Which is frankly laughable.

[Animal]

[quote=MuzzerBy your theory, if I stop at a junction behind someone I should leave a gap in case they reverse into me. Which is frankly laughable.
[/quote]

I always leave a gap. Just because it's stupid and far-fetched doesn't mean it won't happen to you!

OP - Have you got a receipt from the scrappy for your car? I think you're probably on to a loser here, given the amount of time that has passed and the fact that you no longer have the vehicle in question for the insurers to inspect. However, if you can prove that you have been disadvantaged because of the insurers' actions (or lack thereof) then you might get some form of settlement from your insurers.