this isn't their fault

[meganorks]

Or at least equal responsibility. But what would an insurance company say?

PIL have had a bump in their car. They were reversing off their drive. Neighbour opposite has driven off her drive onto their side of the road. They have just caught the back of her. But she must have seen them reversing and decided to pull out anyway. She apparently jumped out and said it was their fault and she was going to get a quote as she knows someone who does that.

PIL are wondering whether to go through insurance as surely at worst both to blame? But anyone actually know from an insurance point of view what they would say? Should probably say they had an accident where they were at fault about 6 months ago. Maybe that's why the neighbour decided yo pull out anyway. Who knows

[Lweji]

I'd guess there will be different factors.
Did the neighbours just speed up across the road? Did they indicate they were turning left onto the path of the OP's FIL? Did the FIL speed up while reversing? Was the FIL actually reversing, therefore with reverse lights on, or just sliding back, therefore not indicating he was reversing? Either way, he should have been reversing slowly enough to be able to stop in time should anything come onto the road (and look directly behind him too).

[Potatoface2]

someone reversed off their drive right into my stationary car (was on the other side of the road)....apparently it was my fault because 'nobody has ever parked there before'...they wanted to not go thru insurance?!? and wanted to get a quote and me pay for it....never laughed so much in my life.....i went thru insurance and they were so difficult it nearly ended up going to court....eventually they were the ones who lost out...idiots.....definately go thru insurance....may put insurance up but saves yourself lots of hassle with people trying it on!

[CatWithKittens]

The insurers will almost certainly have a "knock for knock" agreement so will not enter into a dispute with each other. That way your PIL will get their car repaired but, if they do not have a protected no claims bonus, they will end up paying more next year on their insurance. As for liability it seems to me much depends on who started to move first and when or whether each was or should have first been visible to the other. However if the other car had crossed to come onto its wrong side of the road and your PIL's car had at all times remained on its correct side of the road, there would be a very strong argument that the onus lay on the driver of the other car to ensure that it was safe to leave its proper side, so that if your PIL's car was already out on the road, on its own side, before the centre of the road was crossed by the other car, I would say that only a small part of the blame, if any, attaches to them.

[BluePancakes]

someone reversed off their drive right into my stationary car (was on the other side of the road)....apparently it was my fault because 'nobody has ever parked there before'.

The one and only accident I've ever had, I did exactly this.
In my defence, the other person shouldn't have been parked there because it was on double yellow lines, but ultimately it was my fault as I just didn't see the car in the dark and we went through the insurance with no problems. We have since moved, so no chance of it happening again.

[In my case you had to drive forwards onto the drive because it was at an angle and the road was a one-way street. If you tried to reverse onto the drive, you'd have to turn 330degrees, and would then be facing nearly the wrong-way down the street, so would have to do a 150degree turn to drive off again.]

[HellesBelles01]

Another insurance worker here. Report ASAP to the insurance company and let them deal with it. It will mean that your PIL won't have to deal with the neighbour - keep everything impersonal and relations cordial.

It impossible to say who was at fault from your post. It's your PIL word vs the neighbours. If there's no witness or photos insurers will be relying on individual accounts of the incident/pictures etc. In small cases like this with no injury it will be 50/50 liability. No insurer is going to waste money trying to prove liability for a knock worth a few hundred pounds. I understand that your PIL may feel this is unfair on principle but a drawn out dispute would be stressful and wouldn't necessarily change the outcome.

Any accident is also regarded as a "material fact" and must be declared. In the worst cases, the insurer can void the contract for no disclosure, although in practice you are more likely to be charged the additional premium before any claim is settled. How can an insurer make a fair assessment of the risk they are taking on if incidents aren't disclosed, even the little ones?

How many years NCD to they have? If they have 3 years + I doubt it would revert to 0. Although they has a fault claim 6 months ago so theirs will have already been reduced once. Bear in mind that most insurers give the maximum discount for 4 or 5 years - there's no further discount for additional years. The maximum varies by insurer.

[wasonthelist]

The insurers will almost certainly have a "knock for knock" agreement

Didn't they stop these manh years ago? Or have they started again?

[HellesBelles01]

Knock for knock agreements were largely cancelled in the 90s. Not all insurers signed up to them either, eg direct line.

For pragmatic reasons, insurers will still sometimes split liability and each pay their own insured's costs. It's not worth appointing solicitors, litigating and paying for expensive counsel for a damage only claim of hundreds of pounds if there's no clear evidence that the other party was at fault - to the extent that the other side would admit liability rather than contest it. The legal costs would vastly exceed the original claim, and the insurer may not recover these costs from the other side. That's why KFK agreements were drafted, but having a blanket agreement gave some insurers a competitive advantage eg third party only insurers.

It would be different if the damage costs were higher or there was personal injury involved.