crash liability

[homerthegrea]

I had a crash about 6 months ago when a lorry went into the back of me as we pulled away from a set of lights. The lorry driver has told is Insurance company that he was static at the time and that i went into him even though this would have meant i would have had to reverse into him. as there were no wittness to this his company are saying they will only go 50/50 liability and my firm are saying this sounds a good deal as there are no wittness and is his word against mine. I still have the option of going to court - just looking for a bit of advice from anybody who has been in the same position. Cheers.

[ugly_bob]

Are you fully comp?
If so, just do what the insurance co says. Doesn't make any difference to you anyway.

[homerthegrea]

fully comp. but will only get 50% of exces back and will lose 2 years no claims. quote for next year has rose by �230 as if i take 50 /50 they say i'm part responsible.

[JudgeJ]

I was about to say that it does indeed make just the very difference that homerthegrea has identified.

I�ve not been in this position personally, but I might be inclined to take the lorry driver and/or his insurers to court for recovery of all your costs. It is disingenuous (or maybe just plain lazy) of your insurers to suggest taking the easy way out. Of course the small payout they make will enable them to increase your premium as you describe. And this will not only be reflected in next year�s premium, but probably for about two or three years more.

There were in fact two witnesses to the event - you and the lorry driver. The fact that there were no further independant witnesses does not necessarily mean that your case is bound to fail. Your case can probably be dealt with in the small claims court. The court will have to hear evidence from both you and the lorry driver. It will have to decide whether you reversed into the lorry or whether he accelerated and struck you. The burden of proof is much lower in the civil courts. The case has to be proved �on the balance of probabilities� and not �beyond reasonable doubt�. This means that the judge has only to be 51% sure that your version of events is true in order to find in your favour.

I�d be interested to learn what you decide to do. If you do decide to fight this and win, your next step should be to look around for new insurers!

[ugly_bob]

sorry, assumed a couple of other things there too.
Even if you do win and it's decided it's not your fault, your premium will go up next year anyway. You have to declare a claim (regardless of fault) and this will increase your premium, though not by as much as losing your NCB

[JudgeJ]

He will not have made a claim, ugly_bob. If he decides to go down this road he should tell his insurers not to make any payments on his behalf.

[jake-the-peg]

If there's significant damage to the vehicle you'd have had to accelerate rather quickly in reverse to achieve it.

That makes his account rather improbable.

Couple that with how common going into the back of a car at a roundabout is and I think he's onto a looser if he contests it.

I think your insurance company is being very lazy on this - I would make the above point to your insurance company and stick to your guns.

Then I'd get a different insurance company when it's all sorted - you only really know how good they are when a claim arises - doesn't sound as if they're up to much to me

[Catso]

Do not go for 50:50. This has happened to me, so I speak from real experience.

Someone pulled out onto a roundabout, in front of me, I had to swerve to miss them and bashed the curb, mangling the front wheel & suspension up. No damage to the other car.

They denied all responsibility, I maintained it was 100% their fault. The insurers decided to go to court, and it got as far as everyone being there, on the day. The opposing solicitors(?) went into a 'pre-trial huddle' and I was advised to accept 50:50, on the grounds that the judgement may go against me. As they were the professionals, I agreed.

It later transpired that in fact the solicitors then agreed 25:75 against me. I didn't find this out till months afterwards, almost by accident. When I tried to dispute it, my solicitors had 'lost all the paperwork'. So I was stuck with it.

If you think you are in the right, dispute the case in front of the judge; I wish I had, I think I'd have won outright.

You stick to your guns.

[AllYourBase]

Fight it. They WILL blink first.

[vinrex7]

You should of got one of your mates to say they saw it from another car and that they dont know you

[lady_p_gold]

Well its a no claim bonus not a no blame bonus so as previously said you will lose your no claim bonus anyway. Best thing is to make sure you have a protected bonus next time, once you are back in a position to achieve that.

[JudgeJ]

I say again, if homerthegrea decides to fight the case he will not have made a claim!

[albynpark]

to the poster who said it was uncommon to reverse on a roundabout. This did happen to me when a car suddenly stopped and he thought he went through a red light. It wasn't a red light but the red light for traffic coming on to the roundabout. He then reversed back I prusume looking for the white stop line and bang. No damage to me so I was happy but he did claim saying I went into him. My word against his.

[wrigaj1]

The way the current insurance market is, particularly motor, I would envisage you obtaining quotations at renewal at the same level as last years rate.