Insurance Claim - Who's at Fault?

Smitho3

Smitho3

Smitho3

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,837
Location
Cardiff
Hello All,

My wife was recently involved in an accident and there is some confusion as to who is to blame. Unfortunately our own insurance company immediately pinned the blame on her, however we do not agree with this decision and are not happy that 3 other vehicles are claiming off of our insurance when we do not feel to be at fault.

My wife was parallel parking on a long straight road with good viability, there are parked cars on both sides of the road but as it was very wide it allows traffic to flow freely on both sides. As the car she was using was borrowed she was not quite used to it. During the maneuver she hit the curb meaning she came to a stand still with her nose poking out around 2 feet. As she changed gear and prepared to adjust herself, a car came along the road hit her nose, swerved, hit a now double parked Tesco truck (that wast there from the start of the maneuver) and then hit an oncoming Punto (no great loss there ;) )

Every single person i have spoken too, including a police officer, has said the driver at fault was the one who failed to see my wife parking, and continued without due care and attention to drive toward her. He only broke after he hit her so clearly want looking!

My question to you, is why our insurance company would immediately pin blame on her stating she was causing an obstruction when she was clearly performing a maneuver (albeit poorly)?

If the determination of you worldly folk is that she was in the wrong and our insurers are right to blame her then I will let it lie, but if we all agree, is there a way of disputing this that you are aware of?

Cheers :)
 
"As the car she was using was borrowed she was not quite used to it. During the maneuver she hit the curb " - sounds really 'incriminating' - did she say that to the insurers? At the side of the inevitable spin the third party put on it may be what swayed it.
Did she hit the kerb and bounce back out of the space a bit?
 
She hit the curb and stopped dead. It was a good 10 seconds before she recompiled herself and got hit by the other driver. I doubt she worded it that way to our insurer but she was most definitely sticking out around 2 foot but was stationary at the time he hit her. Only a distracted or blind person would have missed her, he don't even slow down.

It is obvious that the accident would not have occurred if she had parked correctly, but the road was clear when she started the manoeuvre meaning (as the road is a good mile long) he should have seen her long before he got to her.
 
the only way i can see that being her fault is if it was said that she wasnt parking but pulling out into the path of a moving vehicle. in any case you can refuse to accept fault.
 
If she was stationary it wasn't her fault. It's irrelevant whether she was causing an obstruction, it could have been anything, someone waiting to cross, a wider than usual vehicle parked, a skip, etc.

Of course your problem is proving that she was stationary and didn't move into the other car's path, which without witnesses is basically going to be her word against theirs.
 
It sounds like the other drivers fault to me but I bet they are saying she pulled out on them.
 
Haggisman said:
If she was stationary it wasn't her fault. It's irrelevant whether she was causing an obstruction, it could have been anything, someone waiting to cross, a wider than usual vehicle parked, a skip, etc.

Of course your problem is proving that she was stationary and didn't move into the other car's path, which without witnesses is basically going to be her word against theirs.
Click to expand...

This IF she was stationary then it should be open/shut
 
Haggisman said:
If she was stationary it wasn't her fault. It's irrelevant whether she was causing an obstruction, it could have been anything, someone waiting to cross, a wider than usual vehicle parked, a skip, etc.

Of course your problem is proving that she was stationary and didn't move into the other car's path, which without witnesses is basically going to be her word against theirs.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. As she was stationary, it wasn't her fault.

However, proving she wasn't stationary will be the problem.
 
I fear that I will be unable to prove that she was stationary. Aside from those involved in the accident there were no other witnesses. My wife, obviously distraught from
It all was in tears and didn't pay attention to the scene however, the driver of the car was apparently on the rampage.
I guess if he told the other drivers she pulled out and they see her crying then who are they going to Blame? I will draw a diagram later and post it but the general consensus here is he was to blame. As our insurers have already told my wife she was at fault I guess the ombudsman would be the next step? Or can our insurers retract the blame?

On a side note, the police were involved in this an took statements from all involved, would we be able to see these or at the very least our insurers?
 
Really can't see it being her fault. The guy coming towards her was probably on his phone etc! Fight it mate as your insurance company are wrong.
 
What is the other party's story and are there any independent witnesses?

Almost certain that the other party will be saying you were pulling out, causing him to swerve, which would put you at fault. It then becomes a fight between the insurance companies that ultimately could get decided in court. If your insurers are confident they would lose in court, they won't waste money.

Edit: missed your last.
 
The facts as they stand are fairly clear - she was stationary, he collided with a stationary object, it cannot be anything but his fault.

As others have said though the problem is that I somewhat suspect this isn't the story thats been told to the insurers and with no proof its difficult to demonstrate what really happened :(
 
[TW]Fox;26215682 said:
The facts as they stand are fairly clear - she was stationary, he collided with a stationary object, it cannot be anything but his fault.

As others have said though the problem is that I somewhat suspect this isn't the story thats been told to the insurers and with no proof its difficult to demonstrate what really happened :(
Click to expand...

Well, those are the facts we have been given. I suspect if the op was the driver of the other car, the facts would be rather different.

So called facts from those involved are highly subjective, and both parties can genuinely believe they are being objective and yet give different accounts.
 
Dolph said:
Well, those are the facts we have been given. I suspect if the op was the driver of the other car, the facts would be rather different.

So called facts from those involved are highly subjective, and both parties can genuinely believe they are being objective and yet give different accounts.
Click to expand...

This is true, I am sure if I were driving the other car and not paying attention, from my perspective it would have been plausible to assume she had been pulling out, particularly if only noticed a split second before impact.

I suspect in this instance our insurers have taken the easy way out due to the lack of actual proof/witness.
 
Sounds completely not her fault. She was performing a maneuver that in a new vehicle takes time. Something that people should do but most don't is be cautious around parked cars for emerging cars and pedestrians.
 
Smitho3 said:
This is true, I am sure if I were driving the other car and not paying attention, from my perspective it would have been plausible to assume she had been pulling out, particularly if only noticed a split second before impact.

I suspect in this instance our insurers have taken the easy way out due to the lack of actual proof/witness.
Click to expand...

Insurers hate parting with money, they don't take the easy way, they take the cheap way, and when the cheap way involves paying multiple claims, you can be pretty sure they know they won't win a court decision with the evidence provided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom