Car insurance refusing payout - now threatening court

@JSMill It's better in the long run if you go through the other party's insurers.
Do you mean, it's better to accept third party capture? If they say "hi there, we admit liability, we'll pay you," it's better to accept it? I've heard this can go very wrong, especially if injuries develop later, and then you don't have a leg to stand on. It feels like doing a deal with the devil, or if the other driver offers you money privately, to avoid going through insurance.

We all were too. Family member argued with the insurance company when they learned they were making a payout to the ‘injured’ party. The insurance company were aware that it was all fabricated, cctv evidence, judge ruiling etc. But their view was that it was cheaper to settle out of court when the ‘injured’ said they were making a personal injury claim through a no win no fee solicitor 🤷‍♀️ They said a policyholder has no say in how the insurance company deals with claims 🤷‍♀️ Personally, I would have tsken it to the insurance ombudsman, but family member just let it drop.

This is an issue between the insurance companies. I have had it twice, in similar circumstances, and the other company has always blinked at the last minute. It's just a way to avoid paying out for as long as possible.
It's better in the long run if you go through the other party's insurers. I didn't the second time and they kept avoiding settling with my insurer for about two years which raised my insurance as it was fault hadn't been officially settled.

That’s … I’m speechless 😶

Oh well that explains it then 🤣 sorry I just assumed he was being over concerned but now I understand why. Can you try and intercept as many emails and letters from him maybe to avoid him getting bogged down? Poor bloke. Sorry!

I'd make sure he focuses on the point that he is a witness. He is not there because he has done anything wrong. Just like if someone had stolen the car and was being prosecuted.

@HotCrossBunplease Thank you for your explanation. We laypeople need explanations like this.

Oh wow. Misled by omission 😂😂 Please get a grip.

I couldn’t make sense of your post BECAUSE I am an insurance lawyer!

Can I ask whats the issue with Kindertons? I had an accident just before xmas and had to go through kindertons as my car is a lease. They got it fixed and returned to me but should I await issues down the line do you think?

You’re not understanding how the word “may” works in that sentence.

Think about:

“He may be young, but he is wise beyond his years”

”She may only be small, but she is mighty”

Those people are definitively both young and small. The “may” does not cast doubt on the fact, it is signposting the next part of the statement. Hence

”You may not have misunderstood, but you still misled by omission”

Gosh why is he so worried about this? I wouldn't put up with him being all grumpy about something that has nothing to do with him.

This happens ALL THE TIME every single day within car insurance. Just ignore, sign what is needed etc but then forget about it. It won't go to court, it'll be sorted between them and shouldn't effect you guys at all moving forward except having to declare a non fault claim on insurance renewals. That's it. Tell him to stop worrying. It's a good thing you've never been through this before (I have twice - both non fault accidents) lots of wrangling and weird phone calls where you're never sure if they're from your insurance company or someone else's. It soons blows over. I just used to stop answering the phone and wait for an email to pop up.

Anyway stop worrying, this is no big deal, it'll all be sorted and he won't have to go to court.

This is exactly what happened with ours. It sounds like it must be quite common

@HotCrossBunplease you’re an insurance lawyer but couldn’t make sense of my post .. WOW!

No may not about it .. I definitely did not misunderstand 🙄
And re-reading my post, there’s only 1 extra word that would have made it make 100% complete sense to you, so apologies for not inserting that one small word for your convenience. It still makes sense as it is.

They are technically taking the other party to court “on your behalf” but this court case does not actually benefit you in any way because you’ve already had your payout. The insurers have to use your name, legally, to get the money back for themselves and you consented to this (as well as to helping them) when you took out the policy.

Take a look at my previous post upthread for a fuller explanation. I’m an insurance lawyer.

OK, you may not have misunderstood but you didn’t explain properly the case that was “thrown out” was not the same case.

@Choconuts Thanks for your reply, that has given me a lot of insight. Insurance being "a game of bluff" with their customers as pawns doesn't surprise me at all.

I'm in this situation at the moment, I posted in Legal Matters, but far fewer replies than here. Minor accident which was totally the other driver's fault. That driver's insurance admitted liability, contacted us directly and offered settlement (I believe this practice is called "third party capture"), but I refused, as I've heard of this going very wrong. Now, fifteen months later, my insurer is telling me they're having to take that insurer to court on my behalf, as they are refusing to pay up. My insurer has said that a court appearance is the worst-case scenario, and this is possible, but hopefully unlikely.

I wouldn't be surprised if this happens all the time: the insurer who won't pay up waits for the other one to take them to court, hoping that the driver concerned will just "let it go" for an easy life. It is probably best to co-operate with the process, even though you shouldn't have to. I'm worried that they might make my court date when I'm on holiday (already booked).

I haven’t misunderstood lol, this was family. The original court case was for dangerous driving due to a person being ‘injured’ . That was thrown out due to the CCTV showing the person was not in contact with the vehicle at all. There was much more, I’m keeping it simple. The person hired a no win no fee solicitor to take their own court action for personal injury. My family member subsequently argued with the insurance company as to why they were making this payment when it was proven in court to be complete lies and the case thrown out. Their response was it’s cheaper to settle out of court than to go and defend the case, and that policyholder’s have no say in what the insurance companies do.

My ds had an accident. 100% other person’s fault, all on video. Took 6 months and the threat of court to make the other person’s insurer pay up. And my ds premium is now over 2k because of this complete non fault situation. If me and DH had been unable to help ds, that could have been him unable to drive anymore as insurance would have been prohibitive - through zero fault of his own.

someone rammed my DH whilst he was stationary, waiting at a zebra crossing for a pedestrian to cross. That did go to court!! But DH did not have to go, the insurer just did it.

Insurance is a dirty dirty business.

I would ask for a full break down and costing of the work from repairer or Insurance and get a couple of quotes from elsewhere. Did you choose repairer? I had grief when I was shunted as well - I needed it sorted pdq so went through my insurance and their network of repairers, the guy that shunted me had cheap skate insurance and they were phoning me directly with requests to deal directly with them and not my insurer so they could use their own network of repairers, completely confused me (which takes alot) but in the end I just said I pay insurance for a purpose and part of that is to deal with this sort of thing on my behalf. They are a reputable insurance company albeit at the top end (I wanted decent cover) so they couldn't say it was unreasonable and yes the cost of repair and car hire was in the region of 5k as he hit me hard. Glad I managed to avoid car in front of me as that would have complicated things further

I think you must have misunderstood. The case went to court and was struck out by the judge. So how could a payment have been made because it was cheaper than going to court?