Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

AIBU to be cross with this driver and insurance company, and to ask your advice?

45 replies

MangoBiscuit · 28/07/2015 17:37

DH stopped by our local supermarket on the way home from work to grab a few bits. In the car park on the way home, he was in an accident. He had pulled out of his spot, joined the main stream of traffic, was stationary but about to pull away (forwards), and the other driver reversed straight out into the side of his car.

Car is quite possibly a write-off. We've got a hire car for the moment. The other insurance company has been dragging it's feet with correspondence, and has finally come back to say that they're not accepting liability, but has offered to pay 50%. How can they think it's anyone's fault but the other drivers? She reversed into a (at that point) stationary car. DH now has to complete a diagram and description form.

Is this normal? Is there anything specific that it's important to include in the form? If they refuse to pay, where does that leave us? Is it likely that the other driver has lied to her insurance, or am I just painting her as the villain because she's probably written off our lovely car that we saved up for!?

OP posts:

Felyne · 28/07/2015 19:07

I think it's a thing that insurance companies do now to try to keep their costs down, and if both parties are 'at fault' then that's two lots of premiums they can hoik up next renewal. It happened to a friend of mine years ago, the insurance company wanted him to go to court to contest it even though there was no logical way he could have been at fault, and he worked out that he'd be better off financially just taking the hit to his premiums than sacrificing a day's pay (self employed) to go to court.

mushypeasontoast · 28/07/2015 19:11

Same situation here except that I was fortunate as a lady heard me talking in the supermarket afterwards and left me her details as a witness.
100% their fault.

custardismyhamster · 28/07/2015 19:13

Private land thing is a red herring (6 years in insurance claims) op where abouts is the damage on your car?

custardismyhamster · 28/07/2015 19:15

No way will that go 50/50, it's clear from where the damage is that it happened how OP says. UnlessOP's sh can drive sideways

PHANTOMnamechanger · 28/07/2015 19:15

I saw the exact same thing OP describes happen in a supermarket car park about 4 years ago. the at fault driver was an 18 yo, just passed her test, driving a brand new car her parents had just bought her. pink fluffy dice and all that fairy dust rubbish!
She was very very shaken, the other driver ranted at first but then relented seeing how young and upset she was. having established that no one was hurt, I gave them both my contact details. I waited with her while she phoned a relative to come. I had a call from her father later on, just checking the scenario, clutching at straws really (had the other driver accelerated out of nowhere, that kind of thing). No, she quite plainly had just not looked in her mirror. I never heard from their insurance so I assume it all went through no quibble or they settled up privately. I just hope she learned a lesson - it could have been a child she had hit.

MyPelvicFloorTrainsItself · 28/07/2015 19:17

Exactly the same thing happened to me, I refused to accept any liability and eventually her insurance company settled & admitted her liability.

Epilepsyhelp · 28/07/2015 19:20

Stick to your guns but as other posters say the liability isn't relevant to getting your car replaced, you will get the same amount of money whoevers fault it is.

spanieleyes · 28/07/2015 19:32

Same here, a van reversed into me as I drove round the car park, the van had been parked and he set off without looking. Initially said it was his fault, my insurance company agreed so waived the excess/sorted out a rental car for me. After his insurance company got involved, they claimed it was 50/50 as I "should have forseen that he would reverse out" I told them I wasn't a mind reader! Eventually sorted out!!

MaxieMouse · 28/07/2015 19:37

I was once stopped at a roundabout when a car veered from his lane into mine and scraped his car against mine, heavily. No witnesses, couldn't take a photo, the other driver said I changed lanes. Insurance company offered a 50% liability after a year of dragging their feet. Not a thing I could do without proof. It's utter rubbish but it taught me always to have a charged phone and take pictures and get witnesses' names. There are lots of jerks out there.

Original poster

MangoBiscuit · 29/07/2015 06:53

Thank you all. We will contest it, all the way to court if necessary. I'm hoping the insurance is just trying it on, and will settle pretty quickly. With them already dragging their feet, the bill for the rental car will be pretty big, so we really want no share of that either. Feeling a bit more hopeful, and a bit less worried though, so thanks.

No, our car doesn't drive sideways. custardismyhamster the damage is all on the passenger side. Front door, rear door, and door pillar.

If they try the "DH should have foreseen that she would reverse out" thing, we'll point at that he did, that's why he beeped at her! She just did it anyway.

OP posts:

Tuskerfull · 29/07/2015 09:47

My insurers are taking the other driver to court for an accident I was involved in. She was at fault but the other insurers haven't paid up, so now it's small claims. The lawyers acting on behalf of my insurers sent me a long form to fill in asking for details like the weather conditions at the time, what kind of driver I am (giving 'experienced, capable' as an example), if I have been found at fault for an accident before, what speed I was going, etc.

My situation is a little different because I had fully comp cover and my insurers paid me for my car (write off) and organised a hire until I'd bought a new one, so they are acting to get their money back from the other insurers. It sounds like you only had third party cover so your insurers may be more reluctant to act for you. I'm not sure if you can demand that they help. Do you have legal cover?

Tuskerfull · 29/07/2015 09:49

Forgot to add - the info I was sent said the vast majority of cases are settled before going to court, sometimes up to a few days before the hearing. I assume nobody wants the cost of a hearing, so they look at the statements from both parties, make an assumption on who will win, and cut their losses by settling.

VivaLeBeaver · 29/07/2015 09:54

Won't go 50/50. Not with the damage been in the side of the car.

I had similar once, someone reversed round a corner Into the side of my car. Even my insurance company tried telling me I might need at accept 50/50. I refused and told them they were mad. Pointed out if the damage is on the back of their car and the side of mine it's in no way my fault. They all agreed after a couple of weeks.

GnomeDePlume · 29/07/2015 13:44

Have you had an assessor out yet to look at the damage? As a PP said, the damage will tell the story. It wont matter if you are third party or fully comp for that.

Dont be surprised if the other driver is trying to claim the accident was anything but the fact because it is the 5th time they have done it that week!

My DD was in an accident where a man drove into the back of her. The other driver had tried to claim that the damage was trivial. In fact the car was a total write-off. Didnt help that the silly sod wasnt insured. All his bluster and obfuscation was to try and hide that fact.

TheFlis12345 · 29/07/2015 14:44

A lady drove into the back of me once and tried to claim it was my fault (how very dare I indicate, break and start to make a perfectly legal turn!). She refused to back down and her insurance company tried to persuade me to go 50/50. I told them where to go. They only backed down 4 months later, the day before we were due in court. Stand your ground, they are trying it on.

Collaborate · 29/07/2015 15:39

I would second the advice to get a dash cam. I got one for £90 from Amazon. Transcend200. Google it. It's great. HD, superb quality. You'd never be at the mercy of insurance companies and lying drivers again.

OnGoldenPond · 29/07/2015 16:58

If rental car is provided by your insurers you will not have to pay for it regardless of who is held liable. As long as you have fully comp your maximum liability is your policy excess. That's why you pay for insurance!

Sadly if you agree 50:50 liability you will still have to pay the full excess. You only get it back if your insurer recovers all their costs from the other party.

bigbluebus · 29/07/2015 17:23

Sorry to go off at an angle but those of you who advise getting a dash cam - can I just ask, would it have picked up an image of something that happened at the side of the car. I assumed they would only record what happens in front and maybe behind you.

I agree that insurers are trying it on and there is no way that could be 50/50 if the damage to your car is in the middle.

I was in town earlier and overheard an argument between a taxi driver (front vehicle) and a woman (vehicle behind) where presumably they had collided although I couldn't see any actual damage. Woman was ranting about how taxi had pulled up without indicating and just stopped. DS wanted to hang around and hear the argument out school holidays are boring but I told him no point as clearly she was the vehicle behind and if she had hit him then it was her fault. They were both, incidentally, in a pedestrian only area!!

SistersofPercy · 29/07/2015 17:43

Correct. It's positioned usually behind the rear view mirror facing forward (the rear camera if used is usually high up on the back window). Neither would have captured a side impact, but, they would show what OP's DH was doing. If he was stopped etc at the time of impact.

DS was hit from behind last year and only had a front facing camera. The woman who hit him claimed he'd started to pull out of the junction. DS proved he was standstill at the junction when she hit him.

Sometimes the actual collision doesn't need to be on film, it's just helpful to see what the driver was doing.

Collaborate · 29/07/2015 17:55

My dash cam has a wide angle lens, so it picks up a fair bit in the peripheral vision, but doesn't look to the side or the rear. I agree with SistersofPercy that as long as you can show what you were doing at the time of the collision that is usually enough.

Flip

1 2