jlparsons
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 08:01 PM |
|
|
Crunch...
SWMBO had a prang in the tintop today - another woman undercut her on a roundabout and they exchanged paint. The other driver's dad called and
they are disputing responsibility...
According to our insurers, even though the woman undercut and wasn't supposed to be there the other insurer will still say it was my
wife's responsibility to know she was there and not turn off. Hence it's likely to be a joint liability outcome.
Anyone have any idea what happens regarding excess and no-claims in such cases where liability can't be proved? I've got a nasty feeling
we'll be stung for both because that woman can't drive properly...
|
|
|
|
|
worX
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 08:04 PM |
|
|
Sorry don't know the anser to your Q for certain.
But - is there any chance you can find a "witness"?
Steve
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 08:06 PM |
|
|
On a roundabout the rule is give way to vehicles from your right, presumably your wife was on the right of the idiot. Its amazing the stories folk
come up with after the event, get a decent lawyer, you dont have to go with the insurance nominated one, and let them fight the case for you.
Undertaking is illegal in any circumstance apart from queueing traffic...
|
|
|
ed_crouch
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 08:08 PM |
|
|
Quite often the other party will dispute, i.e. accept NO liability, then after you've stewed for a while, they will come up with a 50/50 offer,
and its supposed to look like a good offer. Your insurance company will probably be keen to take it since it gets the case off their books: it costs
them more to keep buggering about with a claim than to just accept 50% liability to get it out of their hair.
If you like playing, instruct them to refuse the offer. Sometimes they'll say something silly in their official report. If you can show that
their story doesnt stack up it might be possible to "win".
If you get a 50/50 and you go with it, it'll cost you half your excess, and there'll be NCB ramifications, even if you have protected ncb,
like if you have another claim this year (unless its a total no-faulter), you'll lose half your ncb and stuff like that.
Good luck!
Ed.
I-iii-iii-iii-ts ME!
Hurrah.
www.wings-and-wheels.net
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 08:23 PM |
|
|
i had a very similar situation myself a few years back, guy in a van crossed a white line and rammed me off the road, wrote off my car. It was his
fault on about 3 counts, but he simply lied and said i pulled out from another turn into him. In reality we both entered side by side heading for the
same exit, there were lines and space for two but he cut the exit and rammed me.
In the end i couldnt prove it, it might've been possible from an analysis of the damage but i didnt have time or energy to do it. So i settled
50/50, and lost 3 years no claims. 
The twat was David Knowles who works for teatime tasties. One day... 
|
|
|
Dangle_kt
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 08:24 PM |
|
|
even if your no claims are not effected your premium always goes up. basically just because a 30% discount still applies doesn't mean the basic
amount can't go up. Its clever wording nd people have enerally forgot what it means. Insurance companies stay very quiet about it too, until
renewal time, and if you want to change insurers - guess what, you have to deare it. SWINES!
Its a joke, this whole disputing liablilty, basically means anyone can drive like a tool, and the worse that generally happen is a 50/50 and the
inocent party gets stiffed.
If your third party only, then if can be REALLY bad - I had this problem, but fortunatly a kind old guy stopped and said he saw everything, if it
hadn't been for him, i'd have had a written off bike, messed up back and shoulder, and no come back.
I hope it works out for your Mrs!
|
|
|
jlparsons
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by r1_pete
On a roundabout the rule is give way to vehicles from your right, presumably your wife was on the right of the idiot. Its amazing the stories folk
come up with after the event, get a decent lawyer, you dont have to go with the insurance nominated one, and let them fight the case for you.
Undertaking is illegal in any circumstance apart from queueing traffic...
You'd think so wouldn't you? According to my insurer though, the fact that they're not supposed to be there and there was no way
for you to know they were about to pull into the roundabout when they did, it's still you that turned off and hit them so their insurer
won't accept liability. Even if they were on drugs, pissed and driving a stolen car the same argument could still be made... so basically if
someone prangs you on a roundabouts, you're screwed. On the plus side, there are CCTV cameras there!!
|
|
|
quinnj3
|
 posted on 17/3/08 at 08:29 PM |
|
|
unfortunately i'm inclined to agree with the way the insurance might look at it. The stupid person undertaking may have put her car in a stupid
place but it was your wife's responsibility to make sure it was safe to turn off at that particular point. Roundabouts can be tricky,
especially if you are unfamiliar with one, it is very easy to make a mistake. This may be just a case of 50/50, a little bit of lost pride, but look
on the bright side nobody was hurt, and all that's lost is a little bit of paint.
Hope this doesn't make me unpopular!
Hope it turns out all right for you in the end
my aim is to build my own locost wether it takes me a week or 10 years to get started, i'm sure i will sometime
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 09:03 PM |
|
|
If there is a white line separating lanes then it is the person crossing the line who is responsible for ensuring that it is safe to make that
manoeuvre.
Phil
|
|
|
MkIndy7
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 09:15 PM |
|
|
This manouver is becoming scarily popular!
People taking the 3rd or even 4th exit and going all the way round in the outside lane.
If they've got it wrong and are indicating right as if they are staying on the roundabout then thats fair enough but if not, as you can't
see it you would presume they should be going left and off the roundabout.
Its scary and quite dangerous as there right in your blind spot if your in a van.
It seems particularly bad with prople using satnav's as they don't always realise just where the 2nd,3rd,4th exits are physically on the
roundabout itself.
|
|
|
swanny
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 09:28 PM |
|
|
i'd sit down and go through the whole thing, getting your other half to draw exactly where the cars were at different stages of the incident,
and where any other cars were. my dad had a prang a few years back car pulled into him as he was overtaking and then claimed he was doing something
entirely different to th4e insurer.
when we sat down and looked at what actually happened, and where the damage was on both cars itm was impossible for the damage to have been caused by
then events the other guy claimed as fact. the initial offer of 50/50 was eventually changed to 100 liability on the other guys part.
but yes, as another posted suggestedb insurer are keen to get these easily accepted as 50/50. both parties pay a bit of the payout and both know that
the industry as a whole will have made more moneym on the whole over the next few years with increased premiums.
dont give up. where theres a will theres a way, and there is a way!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 09:36 PM |
|
|
i make a point of drifting into the outside lane as soon as i pass the exit before, it gives anyone there time to avoid you, rather than exiting a
roundabout straight from the inside lane (which you shouldnt do even if you believe you have right of way). I do this even if there IS someone there
if i feel they have taken the pisss with my space!
|
|
|
jlparsons
|
| posted on 17/3/08 at 11:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
If there is a white line separating lanes then it is the person crossing the line who is responsible for ensuring that it is safe to make that
manoeuvre.
Phil
There was't, and when she indicated and made her manoeuvre it was clear. The other driver then undertook.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead is purely coincidental. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Contents may settle during
shipment. Use only as directed. No other warranty expressed or implied. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Subject to
approval, terms and conditions apply. Apply only to affected area. For recreational use only. All models over 18 years of age. No user-serviceable
parts inside. Subject to change. As seen on TV. One size fits all. May contain nuts. Slippery when wet. For office use only. Edited for television.
Keep cool; process promptly.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 18/3/08 at 08:19 AM |
|
|
if you have an eyewitnes then problem is sorted but generally after pranging it is not the first thing you go looking for.
the important bit is wifey is ok - the rest is just money.
most policies have an additional legal fee wotsit - if you have one, then surely them folks can sort it out.
|
|
|
