# Claim advice needed.



## Sutty 90 (Aug 24, 2014)

My partner was involved in a car accident in November and the vehicle was finally repaired 2 weeks ago. When she phoned up her insurance company last week to get her excess refunded they told her that her claim could possibly be changed from non fault to 50/50 due to what the other party has said and there being no witnesses present. At first her insurance told her it was non fault and I'm thinking the other party has been telling a few porkie pies to get this conclusion 

Basically my partner was hit in the side whilst on a main road by the other party pulling out of a side street into the second lane of traffic. As far as I understood this could not go against you! 

What can I do or who can I go to to get the claim reviewed? Is there any kind of ombudsman or review panel? 

I'm extremely annoyed at all the inconvenience this has caused us but even more annoyed at the fact we have paid £400 excess and she will suffer increased premiums and loss of her no claims bonus if this goes ahead. 

Any advice is very much appreciated and i hope we can avoid being punished as the innocent victim. Thanks in advance!

Sutty.


----------



## Sicskate (Oct 3, 2012)

In my opinion, your insurance company don't want you to take the blame either as this will put them out of pocket.

In theory they will fight your claim until it possibly goes to court.

This happened to my misses, she was loading my 2 year old son into the car when someone hit the open door with force, they claimed it wasn't their fault, the insurance companies argued for almost a year and finally the drivers company caved.

It's crap that someone would lie to get themselves out of the brown stuff, but I guess it's very common.

If it is settled 50/50, maybe put a brick through their windscreen, might make you feel like you got your money's worth , obviously i'd never do this...

Also I'd recommend when you renew your insurance maybe you should negotiate your excess, mines £0 voluntary and £75 compulsory.


----------



## Vossman (Aug 5, 2010)

I was hit from a side road two years ago, the woman never stopped at the line and I was the target, my insurance company were very good about it and as the damage was to the side of the vehicle there was no way it was my fault, still got my no claims but strange you have to declare non fault accidents on renewal.
Insurance companies are just rip off merchants, when you call them the first thing they think of is "How can we avoid paying this?"

Stand your corner and insist it could not be her fault if hit from the side.


----------



## Sutty 90 (Aug 24, 2014)

Sicskate said:


> In my opinion, your insurance company don't want you to take the blame either as this will put them out of pocket.
> 
> In theory they will fight your claim until it possibly goes to court.
> 
> ...


That's what I thourght, surly my partners insurance company would fight till the end to avoid paying towards the claim. Unfortunately the excess is more down to age as her premium is already just under the £1000 mark for a 56 plate 1.2 Corsa. The point of impact was the front nearside wheel right down the side ending on the other alloy so how that's her fault I'll never know. Did you have to push them to take it to court?

I was thinking paint Stripper, give her somthing proper to claim over!
Sutty.


----------



## Sutty 90 (Aug 24, 2014)

Vossman said:


> I was hit from a side road two years ago, the woman never stopped at the line and I was the target, my insurance company were very good about it and as the damage was to the side of the vehicle there was no way it was my fault, still got my no claims but strange you have to declare non fault accidents on renewal.
> Insurance companies are just rip off merchants, when you call them the first thing they think of is "How can we avoid paying this?"
> 
> Stand your corner and insist it could not be her fault if hit from the side.


I don't get how being in a non fault accident increases your risk of being involved in another accident. It's all just a big con.

What's the best way to go about insisting she isn't to blame? I'm prepared to take this as far as necessary to avoid her taking any blame.

Sutty.


----------



## Clancy (Jul 21, 2013)

I would advise you do everything in writing and record dates of all communication etc 

Very useful to have if it's ever needed and stops any comments going missing which are said over the phone 

As for how it's going to play out now I can't tell you, unfortunately everything they do is a joke. Just keep records and be persistent that it's not fault, I would imagine they will fight your corner. But with no witnesses it can be a pain proving anything


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Sutty 90 said:


> I don't get how being in a non fault accident increases your risk of being involved in another accident. It's all just a big con.
> 
> What's the best way to go about insisting she isn't to blame? I'm prepared to take this as far as necessary to avoid her taking any blame.
> 
> Sutty.


If you haven't already, make sure you have supplied your Insurers with a detailed diagram and description of the accident. It will help if you can provide a "before" and "after" diagram showing the position of the vehicles in the road, where the other person came from etc. Include road markings, give way signs etc. Ask them why the TP are denying liability, they may even have available the other person's versions of events, in which case you can comment on those too.

Whilst your insurers may have initially agreed that the accident is not your fault, they have to account that the TP Insurers are denying liability, based on what their insured has told them. In the absence of witnesses, there is no guarantee that they will make a recovery, so there is a possibility that the claim may go split liability, 50/50 etc. The third party version of events may totally contradict yours. The Insurer's can't be blamed for this. The third party Insurers will stand by their insured, as your Insurers are standing by your version of events. If the version of events can't be agreed (after considering the location of the damage to the vehicles, accident descriptions etc) then battle commences.

Now your Insurers will want to make a full recovery, as it is in their interest to do so. But then again, the TP insurers may also want the same, based in their version of events. They have "subrogation rights" under the policy, in other words they will deal with the claim as they see best.

Hopefully with all the evidence submitted, the TP Insurers will back down, admit liability and all will be good. However, you need to be aware that they may not and it will be one word against another. The Insurers then have to consider the cost of court proceedings and the prospect of recovery by taking it to court. At this point they may wish to settle on a split liability basis, being the most cost effective outcome. If this does happen, then unfortunately your NCB will be affected, however, you will be able to recover a % of your excess, e.g. if it is settle 50/50 then you can recover half the excess.

As for the loading at renewal for non-faults accident, "some" insurers make a small load on your premium if you have a non fault accident, but not all. There is a reason for this and I'm sure an actuary will be able to come up with some wonderful calculation to show why, but basically a policyholder that has had no claims at all is more profitable than a policyholder that has had a non fault accident. Not because the insurers have had to pay out damages to a third party, but because there is normally the need to involve their claims department to initially deal with claim, pay the repairs and then pursue the recovery, all of which involves overheads and costs that can't be recovered from the third party.

I'm not saying I agree with it, it is wrong that people sometimes end up being penalised on their premium because they have had a non fault accident, but hopefully it explains in part the reason why it can happen with some insurers.


----------



## empsburna (Apr 5, 2006)

Sutty 90 said:


> I don't get how being in a non fault accident increases your risk of being involved in another accident. It's all just a big con.
> 
> What's the best way to go about insisting she isn't to blame? I'm prepared to take this as far as necessary to avoid her taking any blame.
> 
> Sutty.


There is probably a subrogation clause so they can handle the liability on your behalf.

It probably won't be financially viable for them to fight the claim and will settle 50/50

//edit - should have read the reply from Lloyd!


----------



## Sutty 90 (Aug 24, 2014)

Shiny said:


> If you haven't already, make sure you have supplied your Insurers with a detailed diagram and description of the accident. It will help if you can provide a "before" and "after" diagram showing the position of the vehicles in the road, where the other person came from etc. Include road markings, give way signs etc. Ask them why the TP are denying liability, they may even have available the other person's versions of events, in which case you can comment on those too.
> 
> Whilst your insurers may have initially agreed that the accident is not your fault, they have to account that the TP Insurers are denying liability, based on what their insured has told them. In the absence of witnesses, there is no guarantee that they will make a recovery, so there is a possibility that the claim may go split liability, 50/50 etc. The third party version of events may totally contradict yours. The Insurer's can't be blamed for this. The third party Insurers will stand by their insured, as your Insurers are standing by your version of events. If the version of events can't be agreed (after considering the location of the damage to the vehicles, accident descriptions etc) then battle commences.
> 
> ...


Thankyou very much for taking the time to write this extremely informative reply. Luckily this is our first time handling such a claim so we are abit unsure of what to do! I did everything thing I could by taking photos just after the accident and sent fairly detailed diagrams. In my eyes I did everything I could possibly do to give her insurance company as much information as I could. I'll get her to ask about the third party's version of events and press them to take it further. I just want a fair outcome and as it stands were taking the blame partly.

Once again thanks for the great advice!

Sutty.


----------



## Sutty 90 (Aug 24, 2014)

empsburna said:


> There is probably a subrogation clause so they can handle the liability on your behalf.
> 
> It probably won't be financially viable for them to fight the claim and will settle 50/50
> 
> //edit - should have read the reply from Lloyd!


Thankyou anyway!

Sutty.


----------



## raj (Jan 10, 2008)

Pretty much what Lloyd said, it does also depend on what the evidence is for and against your claim plus a lot of other factors. I manage a large motor claims team for a large insurer, so if you need any advice feel free to PM me.


----------



## salim (Apr 13, 2013)

It would interesting to see how pulling from side road into your car/path can be your fault. The point of impact indiactes you were not speeding so finding out the TP allegations may shed light. They probably have a totally different version of events to you.


----------

