A little over a year ago, I reported a collision to my insurance company, where someone ran into the back of me at a junction. I did this as soon as I arrived at work and also reported to the police.
They waived my excess and fixed my car, expecting to recoup the costs from the third party.
Today, it transpires that he has found a 'witness' to say I reversed back into him as we queued and the insurers want to accept liability on my behalf, as his won't pay. They believe that if it went to court the witness would swing it in his favour, so it's not worth it to them.
Since it's a lie, and there are of course financial consequences to accepting this for me, am I unreasonable to expect them to work harder for me than him?
For what it's worth, I don't believe there was a real witness, because when we stopped so I could ask his details (he tried to convince me not to go through the insurance and refused to give them, or take mine, before following me to where I was going and hassling me some more to let him just give me some cash or 'sort it for me') there was no one there, and I know he didn't hang around after me.
There are inconsistencies in the witness statement itself, such as getting the colour of my car and the road layout wrong, and the fact that it took the driver over a month to report the accident (I did it within twenty minutes) and his insurers acknowledge that the 'witness' didn't want to be involved until the driver rang him to convince him.
Should I continue to expect more from my insurers or is it really just two against one, with no physical evidence?