 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / General Car Topics (UK group) / May 2008Car Insurance Question
If you have an accident and there is doubt over which driver was at fault what happens? I know usually the insurance companies dont bother getting involved in any arguments but what happens? Do you both end up claiming on your own insurance (and paying the excess) ? Or claiming off each others (with no excess to pay)? > If you have an accident and there is doubt over which driver was at > fault what happens? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you both end up claiming on your own insurance (and paying the > excess) ? Or claiming off each others (with no excess to pay)? Just been doing some research and am I right in saying that if both insurance companies agree for it to go 'knock for knock' then each company pays for its own insured vehicle. If this is the case, what about the excess? paulfoel <BertieBigBollox@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> If you have an accident and there is doubt over which driver was at >> fault what happens? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Do you both end up claiming on your own insurance (and paying the >> excess) ? Or claiming off each others (with no excess to pay)? > Just been doing some research and am I right in saying that if both > insurance companies agree for it to go 'knock for knock' then each > company pays for its own insured vehicle. > > If this is the case, what about the excess? Since your insurance is paying for the damage to your car (if covered by a comprehensive policy), you pay your excess, as you were held partly to blame. > paulfoel <BertieBigBol...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > a comprehensive policy), you pay your excess, as you were held partly to > blame. Bummer. So what if I'd been third party? In article <a31e6ca6-fe8b-4b6f-a413-7ee63219c5e0 @d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, paulfoel says... > Bummer. So what if I'd been third party? You get no payout.  SignatureConor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams > paulfoel <BertieBigBol...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > a comprehensive policy), you pay your excess, as you were held partly to > blame. So theres no gain whatsoever in trying to say it wasnt your fault because your going to have to stump up for the excess and take a claim hit anyway? Seems a bit unfair.... > So theres no gain whatsoever in trying to say it wasnt your fault > because your going to have to stump up for the excess and take a claim > hit anyway? > > Seems a bit unfair.... The gain is if you can persuade your insurance company to fight your case and not hold you responsable. Because doing this generally (as opossed to in your case in isolation) makes them less profitable they tend to be unwilling to do so. I think it is very rough, but it is not me you need to persuade. I think some sort of register to hold details of companies handling of claims would be a good thing. What is the chance of getting all the companies to submit things like percentage of cases fought, percentage of cases won etc. to a 3rd party? Snowballs and hell spring to mind for some reason. > > So theres no gain whatsoever in trying to say it wasnt your fault > > because your going to have to stump up for the excess and take a claim [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of cases won etc. to a 3rd party? Snowballs and hell spring to mind > for some reason. Hmmm. In my instance, its a car park prang. Car was pulling out from space - didnt look - I hit it. Absolutely no chance of clear cut liability here. Looks like I'm going to have to claim and stump up the excess here... Luckily, I did pay extra for legal protection so I guess I could have a go at trying to get my excess back. What my chances of that are - who knows? Having dealt with insurance companies before I know what you mean. They tend to look afte themselves. My wife had an accident a few years back. Obviously, the other fellas fault. Even had a few pedestrians come forward and offer to be witnesses (which they did). Still wasnt that easy to get it all sorted. >>> So theres no gain whatsoever in trying to say it wasnt your fault >>> because your going to have to stump up for the excess and take a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > space - didnt look - I hit it. Absolutely no chance of clear cut > liability here. Eh? He pulls into your path, it's bloody clear cut liability. If you were both maneuvring into spaces and pranged then it'd be a grey area... > >>> So theres no gain whatsoever in trying to say it wasnt your fault > >>> because your going to have to stump up for the excess and take a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Difficult to prove though, eh? Other person is insisting they'd stopped reversing and I clipped them going past..... :-( paulfoel <BertieBigBollox@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Other person is insisting they'd stopped reversing and I clipped them > going past..... :-( If they were reversing out, why did you continue to go past them? Anyway, the damage to their car would show if that was the case or not. paulfoel <BertieBigBollox@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Hmmm. In my instance, its a car park prang. Car was pulling out from > space - didnt look - I hit it. Absolutely no chance of clear cut > liability here. No, because if YOU hit THEM liability's at least shared. People pulling out of parking spaces in car parks are absolutely to be expected, so you should have made sure you were able to avoid them, either by stopping in time or alerting them to your presence with the horn. If they continued to pull out, it would have been THEM hitting YOU, so liability would be clear. > Looks like I'm going to have to claim and stump up the excess here... > > Luckily, I did pay extra for legal protection so I guess I could have a > go at trying to get my excess back. What my chances of that are - who > knows? Since you were partially at fault, very low. > paulfoel <BertieBigBol...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Since you were partially at fault, very low. By that same rationale, if you ram into the side of a car thats crossing the road (your right of way) and pulls out 1 foot in front of you its your fault as well because you didnt stop in time.... paulfoel <BertieBigBollox@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > Luckily, I did pay extra for legal protection so I guess I could have >> > a go at trying to get my excess back. What my chances of that are - >> > who knows? >> Since you were partially at fault, very low. > By that same rationale, if you ram into the side of a car thats crossing > the road (your right of way) Your priority, nobody has any right of way. > and pulls out 1 foot in front of you its your fault as well because you > didnt stop in time.... Should be easy to determine by the damage to the vehicles. paulfoel <BertieBigBollox@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > Just been doing some research and am I right in saying that if both >> > insurance companies agree for it to go 'knock for knock' then each >> > company pays for its own insured vehicle. >> >> > If this is the case, what about the excess? >> Since your insurance is paying for the damage to your car (if covered >> by a comprehensive policy), you pay your excess, as you were held >> partly to blame. > So theres no gain whatsoever in trying to say it wasnt your fault Not if it was partially your fault, no. > because your going to have to stump up for the excess and take a claim > hit anyway? Only if it was your fault, partially or completely. > Seems a bit unfair.... <shrug> Easy to avoid. Don't drive in such a way as to cause a collision, then you won't lose your excess or NCB. > paulfoel <BertieBigBol...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Only if it was your fault, partially or completely. But proving that is another matter !!!! > <shrug> Easy to avoid. Don't drive in such a way as to cause a collision, > then you won't lose your excess or NCB. So you are saying that the way YOU drive affects whether other people will collide with your car? I'd like to see your driving style that would enable you to avoid someone rear-ending you because they werent looking!! Must be great ! And, yes, I know you can read the road ahead and brake gradualy etc. but you still cant account for other drivers... Also, what about 'clip' accidents in narrow rural roads? How can you avoid the berk coming the other way going too fast and slightly over your side of the road? How do you prove this? paulfoel <BertieBigBollox@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> <shrug> Easy to avoid. Don't drive in such a way as to cause a >> collision, then you won't lose your excess or NCB. > So you are saying that the way YOU drive affects whether other people > will collide with your car? I'd like to see your driving style that > would enable you to avoid someone rear-ending you because they werent > looking!! Must be great ! If that happens, it's easy to prove liability. > Also, what about 'clip' accidents in narrow rural roads? How can you > avoid the berk coming the other way going too fast and slightly over > your side of the road? How do you prove this? You can make sure you're stationary and tucked as far into the side of the road as possible. In that case, it'd be easy to prove liability. If, on the other hand, you drive into a car pulling out of a parking space, liability is clearly shared at best. > paulfoel <BertieBigBollox@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: >> Also, what about 'clip' accidents in narrow rural roads? How can you >> avoid the berk coming the other way going too fast and slightly over >> your side of the road? How do you prove this? > > You can make sure you're stationary and tucked as far into the side of > the road as possible. In that case, it'd be easy to prove liability. Only if they are honest about it. I got hit once when I was stopped with the brake on. They lied. The insurance company went knock for knock. What could I do? On May 30, 10:58 am, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote: > paulfoel <BertieBigBol...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding > much like [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > partly to > blame. So theres no gain whatsoever in trying to say it wasnt your fault because your going to have to stump up for the excess and take a claim hit anyway? Not necessarily. It can depend upon the circumstances of the claim, and, I would suppose, on the insurance Co. I had someone run into the back of me last December. A few hundred quid to repair, as IMO the bumper was replaced unecessarily. It could have just been rubbed down and resprayed as it wasn't even cracked. I had a comprehensive policy, protected maximum NCD, with a £300 excess. My car was repaired, and I wasn't asked to pay any excess. Shortly afterwards I renewed my policy, at a slightly lower premium than the year before, so they didn't honour the protected discount by simply raising the premium. A trick used by some ins Co that offer protected NCD. A similar outcome could occur, if the 3rd party gets convicted for causing the accident, but again I think it depends on the insurance Co. Some companies have a 'knock for knock' agreement with others, but some still deal with claims based on the circumstances, and if they can recover all their costs from the 3rd parties ins Co. >Seems a bit unfair.... As you see from the above, that is not always the case. Mike. Any idea how big a job the paintless dent removal and scrape/scratches mobile people can deal wth? After a tidy look at it, it looks like only a few small dents, some damage to the wheel arch, and a long scratch down the side.... > Any idea how big a job the paintless dent removal and scrape/scratches > mobile people can deal wth? > > After a tidy look at it, it looks like only a few small dents, some > damage to the wheel arch, and a long scratch down the side.... I really do not know what I am talking about, but as I understand it if the damage includes any edges, as opossed to a dent wholy enclosed within a flat surface, then it is a fairly major job. If it is a removable panel (like a door) it is probably cheaper to replace it than fix it (I am thinking the long scratch down the side). My thoughts would go thus: Is anything important bent? I am thinking suspension parts and chasis. If so it needs to be done profesionally and the car needs to be expensive to be worth it. If not, am I ever going to sell the car? If so can I repair it for less than the damage will reduce the resale value by? If not, slap some hammerite on anywhere that is down to bear metal and keep it as a sign of experience. People will give you more room on the road and be less likely to cut you up ;) > If you have an accident and there is doubt over which driver was at > fault what happens? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you both end up claiming on your own insurance (and paying the > excess) ? Or claiming off each others (with no excess to pay)? 'knock for knock' is largely dead. If liability is unclear, they tend to split blame on a percentage basis for various accident scenarios. 50/50 means you pay your excess, your insurer pays the rest of your repair bill, your insurer claims 50% of the repairs off the other party, you get 50% of your excess back. Your insurer pays half of the other party's bill, and the other driver gets half of her excess back. You still have an at fault claim to declare. > 'knock for knock' is largely dead. If liability is unclear, they tend > to split blame on a percentage basis for various accident scenarios. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other party's bill, and the other driver gets half of her excess > back. You still have an at fault claim to declare. Everybody loses. It's that kind of treatment that's making legal cover essential, and accident management companies rich. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.