Drivers Insurer Doesn't Accept Liability

sonicred007 · May 2007

I was hit by a car while I was half way round a roundabout. yet my solicitor has notified me that the drivers insurer is denying liability as the insured was stationery when the collision happened.

Correct if I'm wrong, but cars entering roundabouts rarely stop when its clear unless its after they've clipped the cyclist they didn't see. The same cyclist the driver couldn't make eye contact with because he knew it could have been so much worse

Hopefully this wont be a sticking point.... but honestly fellas. What a bunch of w**k!

ashbyalien · May 2007

****ers is the word i would have used.

what is wrong with people these days?

www.myspace.com/sfcv2

Garybee · May 2007

There is no such thing as accepting responsibility it seems, a backbone is apparently present in only about 2% of people.

People are great.

Hypocrisy is only a bad thing in other people.

Simon Notley · May 2007

Surely that's just rubbish?? Even if the car was stationary, I can't believe that this is an acceptable criteria on which to refuse to pay up. For example, if the car had pulled out in front of someone and then stopped, realising their mistake, but too late to avoid the accident the third party would surely still be entitled to claim against the insurance of the motorist who pulled out?? I think this is a case for one of our resident lawyers...

Either way, doesn't sound like the car was stationary anyway. Get your solicitor to tell them where to stick their stationary car...

---

If I had a baby elephant, I'd fit right in here.

Noodley · May 2007

It's a ploy to string it out by the insurer. They never (ok, maybe sometimes) admit liability. Hope it is sorted out soon.

sonicred007 · May 2007

Thanks for the support guys... really blew my top when I got in tonight from work.

Asterixcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's a ploy to string it out by the insurer. They never (ok, maybe sometimes) admit liability. Hope it is sorted out soon.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yup, my case has been going on a fair while now. Fortunately the CTC solicitor is making progress against such tactics.

Pour vivre heureux, vivons le v‚lo..

sonicred007 · June 2007

I've got a solicitor through LCC and they are now chasing witness statements from the police etc

Just amazes me though... and I've calmed down a bit since finding out.

Given where and how I was hit, even my word against his, I can not see how any liability could fall on me, but to be honest I'm now prepared for the worst case scenario rather than plain sailing after this bump to proceedings.

frogcp · June 2007

I wonder if there is a web site, something like, www.dirtylittletricks.co.uk where you can post the correspondence so everyone can see just how insurance companies deal with claims. I wonder if people will be so ready to put their business with companies who adopt such tactics. It just goes to show a large proportion of insurance costs are taken up by ploys like this which waste time and money. I think it would be more cost effective to pay up when the case of blame is clear cut.

Vultures circling high in a clear blue sky - must be a traffic jam near by.

njc97 · June 2007

Insurer is probably just using this as a cheap bit of underwriting. They'll reason that if you're a chancer you'll fold at this point, if it genuinely was the drivers fault you'll dispute it and then they'll pay out. Don't let them get away with it.

4candles · June 2007

But how can you be hit by a "stationery" car...?

ask the insurers that..

SteveR_100Milers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by 4candles

But how can you be hit by a "stationery" car...?

ask the insurers that..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Exactly!
Now there is one argument that the insurer will use that the driver cannot be at fault if the collision occurs when the car is stationary, which in 99.9% of situation is obvious (you cant claim for running into the back of a parked car for example). But ifyou can prove that the car pulled over the give way markings and then stopped in your path without giving you reasonable distance to stop, then its his fault for driving without due care and attention. This is where witnesses are critical to proving your case. I guess also you can argue that if the car hit you, the impact would have been on the front of his car. If you hit him (when stationary) then you would have surely hit the side of his car, and there could be impact marks/scratches to confirm this.

Time! Time! It's always too long and there's never enough!

penugent · June 2007

There isn't enough detail in the original post to come to any reasonable conclusion in this case.

Much more detail would have to be provided, such as size of roundabout, distances travelled on roundabout, visibility, signals, who hit who where etc etc etc.

Just because this is a cycling forum we can't assume that the cyclist is never at fault

Pete
(Not reckless, just fast)

babyjebus · June 2007

In this case the accident, mentioned on this forum before, was witnessed by police, the driver accepted liability and the local council is about to address traffic control issues on the roundabout because of worries about the high accident rate. (I was nearly flattened by a carload of church ladies there the other day)

The issue is clearly about insurers wishing to avoid a payout. The driver remains likely to be charged with driving with undue care and attention, if not the full reckless.

I'm sure if you email Stuart off list he'll send you a diagram with detailed calculations, relevant geometry and some nice drawings of the signage. Then you can come to a reasonable conclusion which will satisfy you, and you alone.

Cunobelin · June 2007

Its a ploy.

My wife was hit by a car owned by ITV when it reversed out of a parking space, caving in the side.

They claimed that she had hit them
They threatened suing us for defaming the driver's character
They threatened that we would be taken to court if we did not pay for the repairs to their vehicle
They then threatened to seek damages and costs unless we withdrew our claim.

On provision of photos showing that their car half out of a parking space and asked how we drove sideways they relented....................and offered 50/50

Eventually after eighteen months of threats and intimidation we won and all our repairs were paid for and also a sum to cover our costs in communicating with them.

Stick with it, and don't back down.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

andy_wrx · June 2007

Actually I'd agree with penugent - there wasn't enough detail in the original post to come to a conclusion.
What you've just done is provide said detail. Different matter now.

If the driver is charged as a result of the incident and either pleads guilty or is found guilty in court, the insurers would accept liability.

But if this is the situation, I'm surprised if they are denying it - they'll neither accept liability nor deny it until they've waited to see what the police will do, then if there's a court case wait to see what the result of that is.

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)

andy_wrx · June 2007

But I agree with other posters, it's a ploy - feels like it's a game to a disinterested insurance company but bloody awful to you if you're the innocent victim fighting against it in David vs Goliath manner.

In my incident where I was knocked-off by a car in January, despite it being to me a clear-cut incident when I was hit from behind on a straight road in broad daylight, I was expecting the insurance company to deny it, so I was astonished when the insurers have accepted liability.

But perhaps the driver admitted it to them, perhaps the fact that I'm being represented by the British Triathlon insurers rather than fighting it myself helps, perhaps that the police attended and decided that there was enough evidence to prosecute but sent him on a driver re-education course instead also helps.

But whilst they have accepted liability in my case, I'm waiting for them to offer me a settlement - I'm expecting œ250 or something silly, which I'll get the BTA solicitor to reject, they'll up the bid a bit, etc....again, part of the game.

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)

penugent · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by babyjebus

I'm sure if you email Stuart off list he'll send you a diagram with detailed calculations, relevant geometry and some nice drawings of the signage. Then you can come to a reasonable conclusion which will satisfy you, and you alone.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I didn't see any previous post. However, with an attitude like yours, you can fu@k off

Pete
(Not reckless, just fast)

sonicred007 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by penugent

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by babyjebus

I'm sure if you email Stuart off list he'll send you a diagram with detailed calculations, relevant geometry and some nice drawings of the signage. Then you can come to a reasonable conclusion which will satisfy you, and you alone.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I didn't see any previous post. However, with an attitude like yours, you can fu@k off

Pete
(Not reckless, just fast)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I wasn't looking to debate liabilities, or find a solution - I was warned about this tactic originally.

I was letting off steam on a cycling forum to a partisan audience and those I had discussed it with previously - almost saying you were right, there's no such thing as clear cut when insurance companies are involved.

this all happened in April. We're in June now and its then I find out that a driver acknowledging liability at the scene means diddly if the witnesses that gave statements at the time don't fill out and submit a full witness statement that is requested by the police. Nevermind the insurance companies making up collision scenarios after the event too.

Don't take it so personally Pete. Its only a forum.

boxheadcp · June 2007

We had a guy reversing down a one way street at speed. he was looking to avoid a traffic jam at the end of the road and wanted to take an empty turn off.

The only problem was that my wife car was in the way!

The horn in her car was not enough to stop his reversing progress, so with a car directly behind us, we had absolutely nowhere to go, so sat there stationery waiting for the crunch!

Details exchanged, he admitted to being at fault, but refused to put anything in writing as usual, His BMW 5 series made a real mess to my Mrs little BL Mini, said he did not see us or hear us!

Anyway, after contacting his insurance company, he claimed we drove into the back of him and this is when the fun started!

Luckily for us, at the time of the shunt after he had driven off, a pedestrian came forward as a witness and he was happy to give a statement to the insurance company as to what had happened.

Otherwise they were going to go for us for œ2k worth of damage to his car!

I would not be surprised if he had put a claim in for whiplash, anyway settled in the end, Mini ended up as scrap, shame as it was a great little rusty runner ;-)

penugent · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sonicred007
I was letting off steam on a cycling forum to a partisan audience and those I had discussed it with previously - almost saying you were right, there's no such thing as clear cut when insurance companies are involved.

Don't take it so personally Pete. Its only a forum.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

My original post wasn't a put-down - it was an attempt to get more info to see if I could assist. Whilst I'm now retired and my experience gets more out of date by the minute I have some 15 years experience of dealing with High Court litigation arising out of RTAs and I wanted to see if I could assist. However, as you now seem to have current legal assistance I will abstain. That said, if anyone wants to get smarmy with me I'll happily put them back in their box - even on a forum.

Pete
(Not reckless, just fast)

babyjebus · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That said, if anyone wants to get smarmy with me I'll happily put them back in their box - even on a forum.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Please use more appropriate language. We're talking about an incident that could have had far more serious consequences.
And try clarifying why you demanded more information. How the hell will anyone know you're offering possible assistance if you don't say so.
As I'm sure we both share the same concerns regarding this issue I have no intention of continuing a pointless argument. Cheers

penugent · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by babyjebus

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That said, if anyone wants to get smarmy with me I'll happily put them back in their box - even on a forum.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Please use more appropriate language. We're talking about an incident that could have had far more serious consequences.
And try clarifying why you demanded more information. How the hell will anyone know you're offering possible assistance if you don't say so.
As I'm sure we both share the same concerns regarding this issue I have no intention of continuing a pointless argument. Cheers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I doubt if you ever see sunshine

Pete
(Not reckless, just fast)

Buggi · June 2007

it's just a tactic, hoping you will back down. you know who was in the wrong, and if it's the driver, stick to your guns.

once when i was in my car someone pulled out of a side road and i went into the back of him. they tried to say it was my fault (because it was me going into the back of him) but it was definitely his fault because he pulled out and i didn't have time to stop (and i wasn't speeding either). luckily i had a witness who happened to be a driving instructor (who the guy also tried to say was a personal friend of mine when he wasn't) but the bloke had pulled across his path too, so i had a good witness. the fact that i had a witness didn't deter the insurance company trying to duck out of paying.

_____________________________________________

To infinity... and beyond!
my epic adventure: www.action.org.uk/~Antonia

The Velvet Curtain · June 2007

Yep, its all just part of a big game of chess that they play all day, every day. The insurers of the woman who hit me were great up to the point where my solicitor turned down their initial offer, since then they are dragging things out as much as they can get away with, hoping I will loose interest and settle. (I'm in no hurry)
Stick with it Soni, if your legal bod remains confident then all you have to do is wait.

I cycle, run, and hill walk.
Legs like Popeye, arms like Olive Oyl. (Abs like Bluto).

sonicred007 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Velvet Curtain

Yep, its all just part of a big game of chess that they play all day, every day. The insurers of the woman who hit me were great up to the point where my solicitor turned down their initial offer, since then they are dragging things out as much as they can get away with, hoping I will loose interest and settle. (I'm in no hurry)
Stick with it Soni, if your legal bod remains confident then all you have to do is wait.

I cycle, run, and hill walk.
Legs like Popeye, arms like Olive Oyl. (Abs like Bluto).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's what I'm going to do. There's article in this for a journalist at Cycling Plus me thinks - difficult or blunt tactics used by insurance companies to avoid liability

Thanks

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68463844@N ... otostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68463844@N00/218502187/

Drivers Insurer Doesn't Accept Liability

Comments

Categories