Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,606
I do like these threads, it brings out the Judge Nutmeg in everyone 
Insurer saying I'm at fault - legal advice?
- Thread starter /\ndy
- Start date
- Status
Sounds like an admission of guilt to me!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,033
Just another example of life being unfair. Forget about it and move on, its why we pay insurance.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
I do like these threads, it brings out the Judge Nutmeg in everyone
well he's asking for legal advice but refusing to tell us the circumstances or provide the only real evidence he has.
so what do you think was going to happen?
he is guilty based on the insurance companies decision until the evidence is provided along with the statement he provided to insurance company.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 7,606
I know that's why I like them!
Could you at least describe the circumstances?
Insurance companies aren't in the habit of throwing away money 'because it's easier' when they've got good evidence to avoid that liability easily.
The only reason people are asking is because you could save yourself a lot of potential hassle if your evidence just isn't good enough to mount any sort of legal action with and even though it might not come across like it, they'd rather not see you waste your time and energy on a lost cause.
Insurance companies aren't in the habit of throwing away money 'because it's easier' when they've got good evidence to avoid that liability easily.
The only reason people are asking is because you could save yourself a lot of potential hassle if your evidence just isn't good enough to mount any sort of legal action with and even though it might not come across like it, they'd rather not see you waste your time and energy on a lost cause.
That's the only relevant piece here.
No debate at all, like all junctions, and all roundabouts, and all intersections without traffic lights, road signs or road markings, that are not T-intersections, you MUST give way to any vehicle approaching from your right.
She was approaching from your right, with you having clear unobstructed view of her moving, and as you say she was already moving as you started to move away, you hit the side of her van, so her van had already crossed in front of you as the impact occurred.
End of story, your fault 100%.
The suggestion she was on her phone at the time is totally irrelevant in this scenario.
Soldato
Agreed, especially given the op is asking for 3rd party input. I'd rather get the opinions of Motors for free than pay someone to review it and tell me the same as the insurers.
You could try being a little less accusatory and aggressive.
The fact you are asking that question tells me all I need to know. And you're not the only one who happens to know a little about insurance - except, most people don't feel the need to brag about it to try and prove a point.
Why don't you ask one of your clients what their loss adjusters are paid to do? And how cost-benefit analysis and ROI play into their decision making.
I'm done with this conversation btw. Feel free to reply to your hearts content.
Associate
As a couple of people have already said I am not sure why you want to pursue this. Once a claim has been settled even 1%/99% it counts as a fault claim. Insurer rating algorithms will not differentiate so it will all impact the premium the same.
All marginal accident circumstances would depend on legal precedents for the same circumstances or as close as you can get. Therefore this becomes a Legal issue and you will need legal specialist. I do not know of any company that will perform this without it being a chargeable review. As mentioned above you claim history is already impacted so you won't save any money.
From afar this sounds like a pride thing. None of us like to be held to have 100% caused an accident in marginal circumstances. However the whole claims industry is trying to keep costs down so will just settle and move on.
All marginal accident circumstances would depend on legal precedents for the same circumstances or as close as you can get. Therefore this becomes a Legal issue and you will need legal specialist. I do not know of any company that will perform this without it being a chargeable review. As mentioned above you claim history is already impacted so you won't save any money.
From afar this sounds like a pride thing. None of us like to be held to have 100% caused an accident in marginal circumstances. However the whole claims industry is trying to keep costs down so will just settle and move on.
Soldato
As people are hinting, no matter if you are to blame or not, insurance companies have to make expedient decisions and so do have to simplify things down to an extent it can look lazy/unreasonable etc, but they know what does/doesn't easily stick in court etc and so know when to push and when not to.
People often lie through their back teeth as well, so remember that they may way up any statements made with the video to come to a quick conclusion.
Having seen first hand how odd some of these cases can be, I would not take it personally and move on, accept it's just how it is and you've got good reasoning as to the lengths you'd need to go to (or your insurer) to really prove one way of another, and for a relatively small claim to them, all that to go from 100% to 50/50 is just not sensible.
People often lie through their back teeth as well, so remember that they may way up any statements made with the video to come to a quick conclusion.
Having seen first hand how odd some of these cases can be, I would not take it personally and move on, accept it's just how it is and you've got good reasoning as to the lengths you'd need to go to (or your insurer) to really prove one way of another, and for a relatively small claim to them, all that to go from 100% to 50/50 is just not sensible.
Man of Honour
Look at it this way, an independent third party won't be cheap basically the insurance company sound like they're happy for you to get a solicitor involved to try and force their hand that's going to be £1000 minimum considering what they charge per hour.
Is your premium increase over the next 5 years going to be more than that and that's before you factor in your own time/stress chasing them and the insurance.
Is your premium increase over the next 5 years going to be more than that and that's before you factor in your own time/stress chasing them and the insurance.
would a dashcam have helped ? ..... her use of the mobile seems eminently capturable, equally yes I'd feel agrieved, if the police couldn't orchestreate a mobile usage check,
although timing would have to be very precise.
+1 why was the dashcam footage helpful/unhelpful
Soldato
Closed at OP's request.
- Status