Dieselman
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 34,206
- Car
- Peugeot 403 Convertible
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
didi w203
Active Member
Dunces lmao...sometimes I think 'are people really soft in the head abiding by every rule'? So no one on here speeds...chuck rubbish on the floor. ..spit. ..leave toilet seat up etc etc? Lmfao!!
Sent from my GT-I9300 using MBClub UK
Last edited:
GDAWG10
Active Member
I agree however being drunk was the main cause of the accident and should serve to push the offending parties insurers into accepting liability as quickly as possible.
Missing his turning, then turning nearly head onto my brother's car on the other side of the road and smashing up the rear passenger side is bad enough... doing it whilst three times over the drink driving limit and receiving a two year ban with community service and saying "he cannot remember what happened" because he was so drunk should be enough for the insurers to stop playing games and getting things moving. Had things been slightly different, he could have killed everyone involved, plus his children he was on the way to pick up.
1. He was three times over the limit and has been prosecuted.
2. The damage on his car was on the front. His steering wheel column had collapsed. The damage on my brother's car was on the rear passenger side and rear wheel/bumper i.e it's obvious who hit who.
3. He cannot remember what happened due to being intoxicated. There are independent witnesses and police witnesses.
Not knocking anyone's advice on here....just a bit frustrated with the insurance companies and how long it's taking when considering the above.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,656
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
Things aren't always what they seem..
A few years ago a friend of mine stopped in the middle of a junction as traffic was stationery.
A couple of minutes later he was hit on the side by a lady who drove into the junction in spite if the fact that my friend's car was in her path.
He thought it was obvious she was at fault because he has been stationery for a good minute or two, however the insurers said she had the right of way and he was obstructing her path and that he should not have entered the junction in the first place.
So I guess that being hit while stationery is not by itself proof of innocence....
I do hope that your brother gets a speedy resolution though.
A few years ago a friend of mine stopped in the middle of a junction as traffic was stationery.
A couple of minutes later he was hit on the side by a lady who drove into the junction in spite if the fact that my friend's car was in her path.
He thought it was obvious she was at fault because he has been stationery for a good minute or two, however the insurers said she had the right of way and he was obstructing her path and that he should not have entered the junction in the first place.
So I guess that being hit while stationery is not by itself proof of innocence....
I do hope that your brother gets a speedy resolution though.
MJ , that last one is just absurd ( not attacking you ) .
It is always the responsibility of every driver to be able to stop safely within the distance they can see to be clear ahead ; you are never 'allowed' to run into anything regardless of whether or not it ought to be there .
There are many reasons why the car could have been stopped in the junction -
Other traffic as was the case
It could have broken down there
There could have just been another crash or breakdown in front of him
The driver could have been signalled to stop by a police officer
I think I would have disputed that one , unless the other party was Mr Magoo .
It is always the responsibility of every driver to be able to stop safely within the distance they can see to be clear ahead ; you are never 'allowed' to run into anything regardless of whether or not it ought to be there .
There are many reasons why the car could have been stopped in the junction -
Other traffic as was the case
It could have broken down there
There could have just been another crash or breakdown in front of him
The driver could have been signalled to stop by a police officer
I think I would have disputed that one , unless the other party was Mr Magoo .
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,656
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
I don't disagree, Pontoneer.
This was the version of events as conveyed to me by my friend...
My own interpretation is that due to the nature of the accident (damage only) and the lack of witnesses the insurers simply regarded the position of the vehicles and the right-of-way (e.g. the lady driver may have denied that the other car was in fact stationary).
Potentially if this was a serious incident involving someone getting seriously hurt the police might have looked at it differently, collected evidence, and reached a different conclusion.
My point was simply that in spite of it looking obvious to the driver involved, the insurance company may not necessarily automatically accept that the other party is at fault just because the driver claims to have been stationary at the time.
This was the version of events as conveyed to me by my friend...
My own interpretation is that due to the nature of the accident (damage only) and the lack of witnesses the insurers simply regarded the position of the vehicles and the right-of-way (e.g. the lady driver may have denied that the other car was in fact stationary).
Potentially if this was a serious incident involving someone getting seriously hurt the police might have looked at it differently, collected evidence, and reached a different conclusion.
My point was simply that in spite of it looking obvious to the driver involved, the insurance company may not necessarily automatically accept that the other party is at fault just because the driver claims to have been stationary at the time.
GDAWG10
Active Member
Direct Line still playing the investigating card. Unbelievable.
Car was stationary at the end of a road, waiting to pull out. A car speeding on the main road coming from the right hand side missed the turning, tried to turn too late and spun into the passenger side of my brother's car. I can't even think what sort of maneuver my brother would have had to have done to be at fault when the impact damage is on the rear passenger side of our car and the front of the other driver's car was smashed up.
As mentioned the other driver was three times over the limit and has pleaded guilty, been charged and banned yet they are still investigating. I am in actual shock as to what they are thinking.
Car was stationary at the end of a road, waiting to pull out. A car speeding on the main road coming from the right hand side missed the turning, tried to turn too late and spun into the passenger side of my brother's car. I can't even think what sort of maneuver my brother would have had to have done to be at fault when the impact damage is on the rear passenger side of our car and the front of the other driver's car was smashed up.
As mentioned the other driver was three times over the limit and has pleaded guilty, been charged and banned yet they are still investigating. I am in actual shock as to what they are thinking.
flango
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
I was thinking exactly the same
Sp!ke
Administrator
Yes, insurers like to split liability in these cases so they can claw back excess from both parties and in write off instaces, have the insured on both sides stump up for new policies at inflated prices.
Having a high voluntary excess actually incentivises insurers to split the liability.
Sorry, but I can't picture this in my mind, can you explain?
Surely if the other driver came from the RIGHT, he would have hit a car, stationary in the road he tried to turn into, on its right hand side, ie Drivers, not passenger side?
GDAWG10
Active Member
No because he went so far that he passed the side of the road he should have turned into, started to turn when he was side on in front of my brothers car and spun round into the rear passenger side.
He is with Sun Alliance however it doesn't seem that DL and Sun Alliance are owned by the same company or anything. Feels like a really odd process and we can't work out why our insurer's aren't going for it against the other party....it seems all we are getting is " it's currently a joint liability decision and we are investigating further".
I think it's been about a month now and we've had a shoddy car repair from DL/Dagenham motors who are sending out one of their team to inspect why the side panels inside keep falling off and why the car is still drifting to the side, a £600 excess, £250 to the car hire company because DL would only cover up to ten days and appalling service from the recommended law company cogent law.
Kris-H
Active Member
I'm glad things have been resolved in your brothers favour.
It's worth bearing in mind that Insurance company can only go on the evidence and facts presented to them and that sometimes obtaining that information isn't as straight forward as it seems
Believe it or not, some people don't actually tell their insurers the truth when it comes to claims
so as an insurer we have to obtain evidence from official sources (such as a police report)
Part of the problem is that the police report for an incident won't be made available to the insurers until any /all prosecutions relating to the incident have been concluded.
As this involved Drink driving it sounds as though this might be the case here and as the damage caused to the cars wasn't what you would normally expect from an incident of a driver misjudging a turning, i.e the damage was to the passenger side of the Op's brothers car rather than the drivers side then the police report was needed to get the facts straight.
I'm not sure where this urban myth that insurers deliberately try to agree split liability on claims so that both insurers can get the excesses from their insureds has come from ? In the event of a split liability settlement, the insurer still has to pay the same % of the excess to the third party.. and trust me 50% of a £500 excess doesn't offset the 50% of the £4,000 vehicle repair that they have to pay out, not forgetting the 50% of the injury claim, legal costs etc ...
It's worth bearing in mind that Insurance company can only go on the evidence and facts presented to them and that sometimes obtaining that information isn't as straight forward as it seems
Believe it or not, some people don't actually tell their insurers the truth when it comes to claims
so as an insurer we have to obtain evidence from official sources (such as a police report)Part of the problem is that the police report for an incident won't be made available to the insurers until any /all prosecutions relating to the incident have been concluded.
As this involved Drink driving it sounds as though this might be the case here and as the damage caused to the cars wasn't what you would normally expect from an incident of a driver misjudging a turning, i.e the damage was to the passenger side of the Op's brothers car rather than the drivers side then the police report was needed to get the facts straight.
I'm not sure where this urban myth that insurers deliberately try to agree split liability on claims so that both insurers can get the excesses from their insureds has come from ? In the event of a split liability settlement, the insurer still has to pay the same % of the excess to the third party.. and trust me 50% of a £500 excess doesn't offset the 50% of the £4,000 vehicle repair that they have to pay out, not forgetting the 50% of the injury claim, legal costs etc ...
m1br
Active Member
Going to pick his kids up eh?
Incredible.
Incredible.
