| Author |
 Topic  |
|
REG
Senior Member
United Kingdom
530 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 12:42:33
|
| Can anyone offer me advise on insurance company. I had a terrible car crash last year. I had all but finished my maneuver into Crib Street from Collett Road, when I was hit on the rear/side, so hard was the impact that the car spun, knocking out a post on the other side of the road. Furthermore, I still have awful back problems (broken coccyx) and my son lost two teeth.As an Advanced Motorist it was my first car on car crash (and still haunts me to this day), initially my insurance company Sheilas Wheels (Esure) were very good, informative etc. I had an independent witness, a DHL van man who said at no point did the car brake or swerve and was clearly going faster than the 20 mph. I have just chased my insurance only to find they have settled to the other party, in May, last year, at a cost of 7K. I am in shock as how could it be my fault when I was hit in the rear and I had almost finished my maneuver? What can I do from here? |
|
|
Pat-H
WoLFer
United Kingdom
2404 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 12:47:15
|
Not much I suspect.
You could take a private action against the other drivers insurance but if your insurance company effectively accepted liability you are not on strong ground.
If you had full comp cover presumably you still expect a payout for your injuries?
|
 |
|
|
REG
Senior Member
United Kingdom
530 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 12:50:32
|
| I was fully comp and paid for Legal Cover,but just not in the know and clearly not advised accordingly. |
|
|
|
Whereaami
Senior Member
United Kingdom
814 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 13:00:19
|
| I would write to them and make a formal complaint. If they fail to resolve your complaint to your satisfaction, you can refer the case to the Financial Services Ombudsman. |
|
|
|
Pat-H
WoLFer
United Kingdom
2404 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 13:03:25
|
I gather it's pretty much accepted that the legal cover offered is worse than valueless.
The insurance companies often sell that element of the cover to a thrid party and for the most part they are run as a production line. Minimum effort for maximum fees.
I currently have legal cover (no way to have my policy without it) but have instructed my insurers not to use that cover in the event of an accident. I'll select my own representation.
Personally I'd give up on the who's to blame front and the actions of the insurers who i'm sure just went the easy route.
You need to be sure you get proper representation for your claim for damages from your insurers.
I'll chase my motorbike peopel and see if they have a prefered company.
|
|
|
|
Barzey
Senior Member
United Kingdom
786 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 13:48:09
|
Hi Reg, Insurance companies love to make RTA’s a ‘Knock-for-Knock’ result as that way they are on a ‘Win/Win’ situation and both the claimants loose out with loss of their ‘No Claims Bonus’ and of course having to pay more for their next period of Insurance.
They also seem to like to leave a claim as ‘Unsettled’ especially if you are in the last 6 months of your cover as that way when you come to renew they proudly announce that you have an ‘Unsettled Claim Outstanding’ yet again costing you more money to their advantage and again your loss.
In view of what you describe how the RTA occurred and it seems that they never consulted you properly about settling in that way I think that you would be very wise to contact a ‘Reputable Solicitor’ whom perhaps specialises in RTA’s and knows how to deal with these Insurance companies.
|
|
|
|
REG
Senior Member
United Kingdom
530 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 15:06:41
|
| Thank you for replies so far - does anyone know of a Reputable Solicitor who could act on my behalf - perhaps on a No Win No Fee basis?I am so shocked at how bad the service is and to think ALL the years I have paid in without a claim. I lost a high premium excess and have lower back pain all day every day.Its all rather depressing. |
|
|
|
Moulder
Senior Member
United Kingdom
783 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 16:28:22
|
A reputable solicitor? Hmmm - now you're asking.....
|
Edited by - Moulder on 21 Feb 2011 16:29:30 |
|
|
|
Barzey
Senior Member
United Kingdom
786 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 16:51:36
|
| Hello Reg, I have 'Googled' "Solicitor+RTA" and it brings up a few. One looks good although I have no experiance of dealing with them, but if you PM me I shall let you know details of the one that I found. |
|
|
|
Scottman
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1758 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 19:24:24
|
REG - really sorry to hear of your experience and also that you are still suffering. Your accident is also sufficiently similar to one suffered recently by my parents (near Watton at Stone). They are having the same difficulty getting sensible support from their insurers, who seem equally likely to have settled it on a knock for knock basis. They had no independent witness though. First they knew it was their fault is when their insurance company called them to tell them the other driver was claiming against them for his injuries ......
As others have said, you are going to find this an uphill struggle now. You have to have registered your injuries right up front, got independent medical opinions at the time and made it clear at the point of claim that you would be looking for damages against the other party. Honestly I rather doubt that any solicitor could help you in hindsight, and you might be advised to save your money and concentrate on getting better. |
|
|
|
Scottman
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
1758 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 20:14:29
|
A further thought - you could state that you are still waiting for your insurance company to recoup your 'excess' from the other insurance company. I believe this is still the accepted signal that the other company admits liability overall, even if the competing claims were settled knock for knock.
At the least this will signal that you do not accept a closure that was evidently completed without your knowledge. It may encourage a further debate. |
|
|
|
New Boy
Average Member
United Kingdom
380 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 20:41:05
|
Knock for knock agreement went years ago.
If you were reversing into Crib Street, then a degree of negligence will be attributable to you? |
|
|
|
REG
Senior Member
United Kingdom
530 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 20:43:39
|
| Again thank you for replies. My injuries were noted form point of ambulance and admittance to hospital, plus I have repeatedly seen my doctor for back pain etc. I am at a loss what to do because I just can not believe the point of being an advance motorist and fully comp insurance. Frankly feel like pulling my hair out, unlike the claimant who crashed into me and got 7K!!!Do you know he even claimed for a replacement car when he had a garage car to use. |
|
|
|
Barzey
Senior Member
United Kingdom
786 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 21:17:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by New Boy
Knock for knock agreement went years ago.
Dont you believe it - its still there |
|
|
|
KateG28
Average Member
194 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2011 : 22:19:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Barzey
quote:
Originally posted by New Boy
Knock for knock agreement went years ago.
Dont you believe it - its still there
But it is NOT what people think it is. What most people think is 'Knock for knock' is actually when they settle 50/50 and attribute half of the responsibility.
Knock for Knock is nothing to do with responsibility but instead of Insurer A sending hundreds of cheques each day to Insurer B and Insurer B doing the same thing, they just say that at the end of the period they probably even each other out and therefore will not actually send a cheque. That is knock for knock. It is a term used within the industry but people outside the industry use it all the time and it does not mean what you think it means. What you are referring to is 50/50 (both parties have an element of blame)
If you get your excess back, then it is not your fault and you will not lose your NCD but it is likely your premiums will rise anyway as if you have been in one accident, the chances are you will be in another. It is not fair but it is statistical fact.
As for REG's accident, I read it as you pulled in front of someone, they may have been going too fast but you still have a duty of care not to go into their path. I wasn't there, didn't see it, probably didn't read your account properly so cannot confirm either way.
Anyway, you still need to ask the Insurers to explain the situation in full. |
|
|
|
Pat-H
WoLFer
United Kingdom
2404 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2011 : 07:51:55
|
My understanding of knock for knock isn't a 50/50 split. It's that each parties claim is covered by their insurer. It's almost impossible that the split of costs would be equal on both sides.
The advantage to the insurers is that they don't accept liability, they effectively just agree not to claim from the other parties insurers.
However the driver in both cases lose out as they are effectively making a claim against their insurance and lose their no claims and excess.
It's a very clever technique that gains the most for the insurance companies and the least for the drivers.
The highway code does prohibit reversing from a minor road into a major road but you'd be hard pressed to claim Crib street was more major than Collet road.
So yes while reversing extra care has to be taken as visibility is reduced and sight-lines are narrower but every car has reversing lights that clearly indicate that the car is going backwards and sometimes you have no option but to reverse.
All drivers should be driving at a speed that allows them to stop safely on their side of the road in the distance they can see to be clear. Doesn't sound like this was the case for the other driver.
It's a sad day if we concede that it's acceptable to assume other drivers aren't paying attention and worse aren't looking for opportunities to give way and be courteous on the roads.
So in this case assuming the reverse was done carefully and slowly and it wasn't a practical option to have turned around beforehand then the maneuver would seem to be acceptable and "normal"
The driver who managed not to see a car reversing out and took no avoiding action would appear to be at fault.
But that's just based on what's been posted of course and whatever we think is irrelevant anyway as the insurers hold all the cards (as well as increasing amounts of our cash!)
|
|
|
|
spear
Advanced Member
1380 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2011 : 10:05:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pat-H
It's a sad day if we concede that it's acceptable to assume other drivers aren't paying attention and worse aren't looking for opportunities to give way and be courteous on the roads.
I assume this all the time, along with they do not really want to be in the lane they are in and are not really going the way they are indicating.
On a knock for knock if you get your excess back your no claims is reinstated - we had to sue for ours but it was pretty simple, if you want to claim for injuries it is a bit more complicated but most PI solicitors will do no win no fee (at least at the moment) |
|
|
|
bigbloke
Average Member
199 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2011 : 14:48:30
|
Reg, if you suffered an injury from your accident, your insurance company may still be liable for any compensation regarding the injury, if it us the case you were insured fully comp. However it does lessen the case if the insurance company after investigating the claim, felt that you had been at fault or not taking sufficient care.
I was not there, and cannot offer any opinion as to who was at fault, but if it was the case that you were reversing from your house on collet road and into Crib street, that means that perhaps your manoeuvre was ill advised as this would have required you to reverse directly across the 2 lanes of traffic on Collet road and The Bourne. Was this in daylight, because if so that particular junction has no real obstructions to view either up Collet Road, or the Bourne. I imagine the insurance company have taken the view that either you have not taken sufficient care in checking for oncoming traffic or perhaps were un sighted by an obstruction and have completed the manoeuvre accordingly.
I would suggest you contact the legal cover as suggested, and then proceed with a claim against your own company in regards to a claim. There is certainly a case for your son to recurve damages from your own company as he was a passenger in your vehicle at the time of the accident. |
|
|
|
spear
Advanced Member
1380 Posts |
Posted - 28 Feb 2011 : 15:02:49
|
If your insurance co have accepted you were at fault then it is difficult to see how they could oppose a claim by your son, your own claim would fail - you can't claim for injuring yourself.
As I understand it the claim could not be brought by you because he would be claiming against you and would have to sue you if it got that far. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
