Accident

[Alliegid]

Hi all - just after a bit of advice. My 26yr old daughter was involved in an accident today, she was approaching a roundabout and indicating, not moving lanes. A motorbike hit the back of her car (damaging bumper and leaving black mark on car) before biker fell off and bike caught fire. Nobody was really hurt and ambulance came and went and fire service put bike out and police interviewed everyone. No witnesses really as everyone moved on because of danger of fire. She looked in mirror, but didn't see it. She thought that she was probably doing about 40mph

Anyway her insurance company are saying that she will almost certainly be liable as it was a motorbike and they have different rules (can that be right?)

Obviously I was not there, but any views would be welcome

[fiction-factory]

I can't see that being the case if the motor bike drove into the back of her.
I know that different rules apply for cyclists but even then I think that seems so clear cut that your daughter is not at fault based on what you say

[fiction-factory]

Anyway, it's a problem for her insurer to sort out- her only argument will be over her excess and no claims discount

[Ellipsis]

Doesn't sound right. Normally when you are hit from behind it's not your fault. There are a few exceptions, e.g. you're in reverse, or you cut sharply in front of somebody that then can't stop in time. But from what you've said, your daughter was not at fault.

[ivor4781]

biker at fault but without a doubt her insurance will rocket next renewal time

[themas]

If her insurer insists in treating it as an "at fault" accident it will have a far greater effect on her premiums. If your (i.e. her) account is correct she should take this through the insurer's complaints procedure and - if necessary - to their ombudsman (or whatever external service they subscribe to).

[Alliegid]

Thank you all for your advice