Car Crash - insurance say both at fault

GuruJockStrap · 21 Jun 2007 at 00:22

Tommy B said:
Keep a digital camera in the car at all times.

But do insurance companies take a digital print as valid proof? Its so easy to photoshop images these days I would've though the only photographic evidence they would expect is from a traditional film camera.

Jet · 21 Jun 2007 at 00:31

If you have no luck with the insurance option you could always sue the other party for negligence causing property damage.

It's best to get in touch with a local specialist solicitor and having a quick chat because I don't know how it would be affected by the insurance situation.

Dolph · 21 Jun 2007 at 08:32

Vibez said:
How can they deny you a service you have paid for?

Most likely because they realise the court will settle the same way. I don't know of any legal policy that will fight for you in the event of no chance of winning.

They have two conflicting stories, two conflicting witness statements, in the absence of CCTV or similar, they have no way of proving which one is the correct one, so they will settle 50/50.

IAmATeaf · 21 Jun 2007 at 12:02

Dolph said:
Most likely because they realise the court will settle the same way. I don't know of any legal policy that will fight for you in the event of no chance of winning.

They have two conflicting stories, two conflicting witness statements, in the absence of CCTV or similar, they have no way of proving which one is the correct one, so they will settle 50/50.

Regardless of the above surely logic would dictate that the other party cut across on-coming traffic and caused the accident. Speed is obviously a factor but the accident was a result of the other party driving without due course and attention. I'd argue, no way I'd take it, same insurance or not, I'd want to make use of the services I've paid for.

jumpy · 21 Jun 2007 at 12:40

Insurance companies... I wouldn't pass water upon them if they were on fire.
Legally endorsed theft is what I call 'em.
You pay through the nose to insure your vehicle and when it comes to the crunch (haha) all you get is the run-around about why you will not get a payout on something that was not your fault and that you are supposedly covered for.

Sometimes I think it would be easier to have no insurance; in the past every single accident I have been involved in that was not my fault I have had to pay for any damage to be fixed out of my own pocket, or if the motor was a catB write-off then I got back far less than the vehicle was worth ie. not enough to get a vehicle of similar condition etc. All of the money paid in insurance over the years would have got me a very nice car indeed and left cash over to cover any accident repairs in the process.

Damn Shylock's, the lot of them.

As others have said, get on to the insurance ombudsman, you might get some positive response then rather than your company trying to wheedle out of a payout, or the other lying git who says it was all your fault. :mad:

monkeyspank · 21 Jun 2007 at 13:39

That's awful mate, I really hope you get it sorted out. Cheating, lying thieves.

The reason they want a 50/50 is so they can ramp up both of your insurance premiums instead of just one.

Baron_Samedi · 21 Jun 2007 at 16:17

If you have sufficient evidence a witness and photographs of your damage etc I would not hesitate in putting the case in front of a judge at the small claims court or whatever.

If its valid, get expert testimony from an engineer or whatever to corroborate your statements with a touch of science.

BTW, have you put your personal injury claim on hold?

If you have, put a light under someone to get it going again. I say this because the onus will be on you to prove you were hurt and not on the third party to prove you were not whiplashed in the collision. The longer you leave it the more the third parties insurance will believe there is no problem and act or react accordingly.

Fr0dders · 21 Jun 2007 at 20:32

Baron_Samedi said:
If you have sufficient evidence a witness and photographs of your damage etc I would not hesitate in putting the case in front of a judge at the small claims court or whatever.

If its valid, get expert testimony from an engineer or whatever to corroborate your statements with a touch of science.
.

i would

you honestly are wasting your time. Insurance companies legal protection quite clearly states that they wont take it to court if they dont want to.

"dont want to" are cases whereby they are not likely to win, and waste thousnads on legal fees for nothing.

honestly, there are no "expert" witnesses to be called here. The damage sustained to the car prooves nothing about who pulled out first, nor who was at fault. You dont have glossy tv court cases with "expert witnesses" etc.. in an insurance case. Usually its just correspondance between the insurance companies legal departments, and they will both argue they have a claim on the other. Obviously neither can proove it, so they mutually agree to not to claim on each other as its cheaper. It isnt worth massive legal fees in court actions for your small bump.

And if you do claim off your insurance, its not your money your spending. Its theres. Your repair job will cost hundreads if not thousands of pounds, if they can claim from the other party sucessfully they will.

ive been there, done this. It wont happen.

Baron_Samedi · 21 Jun 2007 at 21:33

Sorry MrLOL, there is no reason that you can't hire someone to make an assessment of the situation based on a known set of facts. There is nothing glossy about the event at all.

All the witness is doing is providing a layperson ie the judge with an impartial and unemotional assessment of the events.

Your statements are emotive of the situation you encountered. Someone else might, and did feel strongly enough to protect their rights by using the small claims court (not expensive I think you will agree) to seek redress.

And, without any gloss won their case.

Its all down to how much you want something....

Matt82 · 21 Jun 2007 at 21:53

'expert witness evidence' is not permissible if the claim stays within the small claims track and in any event, judges are so cynical about 'expert witness evidence' as they feel someone is telling them how to do their job.

a typical report for an accident scene assessor, with locus photos will be about £300 and even then there is no guarantee it will be admissible.. anyway, the claim is not even issued you.

as per my post above.... do you actually know if its settled yet or not?

Fr0dders · 21 Jun 2007 at 21:54

Baron_Samedi said:
Your statements are emotive of the situation you encountered. Someone else might, and did feel strongly enough to protect their rights by using the small claims court (not expensive I think you will agree) to seek redress.

this is completely different though

your arguing about using the small claims court. the argument so far has been about "paying for a service" nameley legal protection and not receiving it because his insurers are setting 50/50.

You're right, you could possibly go to the small claims court and bypass the insurance companies completely. And try and win the cash, and then pay for a cash repair of your vehicles and not claim on your policy.

My understanding of it is though, is that the civil courts deal with this under the 'Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Meaning It is necessary to calculate the full cost of the damage caused and then reduce it by the % of blame between the drivers. But without proper concrete proof, that percentage is very likely to be 50%,

meaning your repair bill is only 50 % paid. Still leaving you the other 50% to pick up yourself.

I guess its better than claiming on your insurance, but with a witness willing to lie, and the other party willing to lie, theres no guarantee it couldnt go the other way, and the court award him more than 50 % ...

Dolph · 22 Jun 2007 at 08:39

IAmATeaf said:
Regardless of the above surely logic would dictate that the other party cut across on-coming traffic and caused the accident. Speed is obviously a factor but the accident was a result of the other party driving without due course and attention. I'd argue, no way I'd take it, same insurance or not, I'd want to make use of the services I've paid for.

The issue will come down to two words... Prove it. The claim of speeding (which is backed by a witness) shifts some of the liability, as you can argue successfully that both parties are at fault, and that is the way a court would settle. This is not a criminal case, so you're not looking at guilty or innocent and beyond reasonable doubt, you're looking at balance of probabilities and percentage contribution. Don't confuse the two.