Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

About a month ago, I was in a minor fender bender. I was waiting at the lights when this old bat smacked into the back of me and then carried on up the side of my car. Her car was more damaged than mine, but I was still damaged. At the time she completely admitted responsibility (oooohhhh I misjudged the gap, sorry!) and we swapped insurance details, but now she's denying responsibility for it. Apparently it's all my fault. And because I couldn't get any independent witnesses (even though this happened in rush hour traffic), the insurance company says that it's likely that I'll have to accept partial responsibility for it, which means higher premiums and no no claims bonus. To the extent that I might not be able to afford my car anymore.

Are all insurance claims this awkward?

Pretty much.

Can you try and argue that the way the damage is, that she must have run into you.

Over here it's smart to get the police out here when we have an accident on the road. They can write up a report and give us a report # to give the insurance. It eliminates a lot of the 'he said she said' stuff that happens.

Do you have a bank account or home insurance policy that gives you free legal advice? If so, you could see about having a solicitor look at the case for you.

For example, factors like the weather conditions, traffic conditions and the pattern of damage all help point towards the realistic blame. A solicitor would be able to marshal this kind of evidence into an impressive letter.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
About a month ago, I was in a minor fender bender. I was waiting at the lights when this old bat smacked into the back of me and then carried on up the side of my car. Her car was more damaged than mine, but I was still damaged. At the time she completely admitted responsibility (oooohhhh I misjudged the gap, sorry!) and we swapped insurance details, but now she's denying responsibility for it. Apparently it's all my fault. And because I couldn't get any independent witnesses (even though this happened in rush hour traffic), the insurance company says that it's likely that I'll have to accept partial responsibility for it, which means higher premiums and no no claims bonus. To the extent that I might not be able to afford my car anymore.

Are all insurance claims this awkward?

How is it possible, with what I'm guessing is the obvious evidence of damage on the rear of your vehicle, that there's even a debate as to who is responsible? Why would you need a witness for being rear ended, the damage is self evident, no? Aren't there any traffic, or private, cameras around for footage?

@ Herzlos

I've argued that yes, with photos and everything. Apparently that's not good enough for them.

@ Inquisitor Lord Bane

I tried that too. Unless someone is injured, they don't want to know. Wouldn't even come to us. Which is a shame because I'm fairly certain that she'd been on the drink.

While not admissible in court, always take pics, assuming that you have a camera on your phone. It helps with the old memory.

Also, point out to your insurance company that you were stationary at the lights, as you weren't moving why are you being apportioned responsibility? Can you speak to the council to see if there were any cams at the lights?

Cheers

Andrew

@ Killkrazy

I will definitely get legal advice for sure. Because this whole thing is bs.

@ BigWaaagh

Your guess is as good as mine. I thought it was open and shut too but...apparently not. I'll try to get camera footage from some where. It was in the city center so there's bound to be some somewhere.

@ AndrewC

One thing I'm definitely getting is an in car camera system. I'm never going to be caught out like this again.

Future, I'm assuming that all your communication has been via the phone, so move it to written communication and tell them that you are. That way they can't then have a lapse of memory.

All accidents have an allocation of responsibility, now it been a while, but I have always been told that in the event of an accident the person responsible is the one who hit the other. Normally where both vehicles are moving it can become a bit of a he/she says situation, but where one vehicle is not moving, it's very hard to hold the stationary diver responsible.

I would suggest that you write or email the insurance company stating that as you were stationary on what grounds they are allocating partial blame to yourself. If you write, send it recorded or preferably signed for delivery and keep a copy of your letter!, if you email include yourself as a CC or BCC recipient, that way you have proof that you contacted the company.

Nothing scares a company so much as having to put something in writing.

Cheers

Andrew

From what I remember of the Wife's "3-shunts-in-3-years" problems, the person doing the ramming is at fault unless otherwise proven.
The other driver will have been told to deny blame, despite what she said at the time.
Try to get some info about accidents at the same spot, and (somehow) how many of those went to the 'rammer'.

Always get a police report, and have the police file a traffic charge. If you have a police report where she was cited for something, that is the only way they can't fight it.

Also witnesses help. If you have no police report and no witness, it is you vs them and insurance companies won't fight it.

Never trust anyone who admits fault... unless you can maybe get them on video saying so.

Unless your state has a law or signs which say 'move from travel lanes' then sit there, block traffic and the police will show up and issue citation to the person who hit you.

Sounds like they are trying to strong arm you into a settlement more favorable to them. Common tactic.

 Skinnereal wrote:
From what I remember of the Wife's "3-shunts-in-3-years" problems, the person doing the ramming is at fault unless otherwise proven.
The other driver will have been told to deny blame, despite what she said at the time.
Try to get some info about accidents at the same spot, and (somehow) how many of those went to the 'rammer'.

That's the way it works around here at least. Unless they've got evidence of you backing up full speed into them if the dents are in the rear of your car and the front of theirs, they're at fault and even then...

I don't know how it works in the UK, but at least in the US, it's commonly misunderstood that insurance premiums go up and down based upon how likely it is you will get into an accident, and so ultimately, they try to gauge how safe of a driver you are.

In fact, what they try to do is gauge how likely it is you are to file a claim. How safe a driver you are factors into that but it's not the end all, be all. If an arsonist burns down your house while you are on vacation in a different country - not even a whiff of fault - and you file a claim, your premiums will go up.

At least, that's my understanding.

Yeah I always involve the police now. A written report from them helps, I'm not sure if it's the same across the pond. I have also been advised to have the police issue a ticket to the driver responsible, because that assigns guilt to the other driver, and then after the fact when the insurance companies are hashing it out, responsibility falls entirely to the person the police actually gave a ticket - there's actual proof they were the cause and I was the victim.

I've only had that actually come up once, but when it did it helped me out a lot. The dude's insurance was some fly-by-night company halfway across the country, but he got the ticket for ramming me while I was completely stopped at a light (hey same situation!), so they weren't able to get out of paying, and I didn't have to pay out of pocket for a loaner while my car was in the shop.

The cop asked me if I wanted him to issue a ticket to the man who rammed into my car. I asked him, "Aren't you supposed to?" Maybe some people are all forgiving or something, but I'd rather cover my ass regarding losing an obscene amount of money to fix something the other driver broke.

Don't trust people who break your stuff. They don't actually want to pay for it, but they'll say anything to get out of the situation. I know that makes me cynical but hey, if they really are willing to accept blame, they'll wait for the police to show up, admit fault for the report, and basically not give their insurance company an out.

 Ouze wrote:
In fact, what they try to do is gauge how likely it is you are to file a claim.

And it also seems to be quite negotiable, depending on how good you're at talking and convincing the seller that they'd be happy to have you as a customer.

I recall the little article a foreign journalist wrote about it - he had been stationed in the USA for quite a long time, enough that his son got a driver's license and needed insurance. So he calls the company he already uses (no names were named) and they offered a frankly outrageously expensive deal (IMO at least, and that of the writer). Hmm. Let's check another company then? A better offer but still ways off anything reasonable. And then suddenly the sales rep at his present company had checked his file, I guess, and calls up again. About that insurance for your son? Well, we see that you're a long-time customer, pays on time, no troubles - if you pay the kid get's his for still a bit more than the adults in the family but in any case a fourth of the original offer.

Over here you just can't get that kind of sway in prices. Insurance is a regulated business. Especially for cars - the state doesn't want to pay for all accidents because it's impossible for people to afford even basic insurance.

While I have no idea how to help you get out of this mess, I can give you a tip to help you avoid getting into this kind of thing in the future: Get a dashcam for your car.

This kind of thing is exactly why we have dashcams in our car.
Having a dashcam in your car should be obligatory. I don't understand why so many people in Europe don't have them when they can save you so much trouble.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Get a dashcam for your car. This kind of thing is exactly why we have dashcams in our car.

I guess many people think you have them just to provide those insane YouTube videos. ;-)

I know why you have them, yes. It's sad that you need them, but then again it is even sadder that we others don't think we could ever need them. The law and the insurance company is always just, eh? Until they don't believe you. And then no one else believes you either.

I work for a UK motor insurer so will see if I can help.

What are the ladies version of events?

From your description you should have some damage to your rear and down the side where as she should have some to her front and side. It that's the case then the damage should support your version of events entirely.

As a month has passed you may find that any store front CCTV footage has been erased but the council should still have some. The police are unlikely to be any help at all unfortunately unless someone was drink / drug driving or someone was very seriously hurt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, was interrupted whilst posting so didn't get a chance to finish.

One option is to deny liability and request that your motor insurers do the same so that you can fight this in court, and if they refuse to allow you to do so then you were make a complaint to the financial ombudsman. Any complaint you take to the ombudsman is going to cost your insurer even if the complaint goes in their favour (they pay the fee what ever the outcome) so they are more likely to give you the opportunity to fight this in court then if you threaten to go to the ombudsman.

Thank you for the advice everyone. I'm really attached to this car and I'd be gutted if I had to give it up. Especially because of this.

@ Aeneades

From what I can gather, she's saying that I stopped too suddenly and unnecessarily. I guess red lights don't count?

What actually happened is, the four lane road we were on splits into two two lane roads (one going straight on, the other turning right). She was in the wrong lane, so she just crossed right over, tried to go around me but just hit me. And since that didn't register with her at first, she just carried on.

if you stopped suddenly like she claims and she couldn't avoid you then she should be held entirely at fault. The duty of care is on her to maintain a safe speed and enough distance to safely stop without hitting any vehicle or person.

There is a good chance either her or her insurers are trying their luck and if your insurers refuse to give in then they may just back down.

One of the best things you can do after an accident, especially one that is not even remotely your fault, is take pictures of the scene on your phone. You'll look like a bit of a tool, and the last time I did the other guy got really annoyed but tough noodles on him. Cars are expensive and I'm not paying for something I didn't do

Just take a bunch of shots from multiple angles, and take some pictures of the road to catch an debris or skid marks. If you can get on the side of the road and take a pictures of the vehicles and their positions relative to things like stop lights and signs that's good (EDIT: You really really want shots that capture things like debris and skid marks such that anyone looking at them can understand they're from your accident, and not just random pics of the road. Try and get shots that have the cars in them as much as you can. A random skid mark is useless to you. A mark with a cars rear bumper in the corner is very useful). Catching the whole scene with some road will prevent future "but he was over here" kind of BS. It can all be used later to protect yourself from litigation.

Yep, photos of the accident scene are extremely helpful, just make sure you take them before any vehicles are moved. You can also take a video of the accident scene and leave the video discreetly recording whilst you talk to the other party as if they then admit it's their fault you have it recorded.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't know how it works in the UK, but at least in the US, it's commonly misunderstood that insurance premiums go up and down based upon how likely it is you will get into an accident, and so ultimately, they try to gauge how safe of a driver you are.

In fact, what they try to do is gauge how likely it is you are to file a claim. How safe a driver you are factors into that but it's not the end all, be all. If an arsonist burns down your house while you are on vacation in a different country - not even a whiff of fault - and you file a claim, your premiums will go up.

At least, that's my understanding.

My sister works in insurance and said something to this effect. They (State Farm) have a special database they use when calculating the premiums.

That's been my experience as well. As someone whose moved around a lot, and has to reapply for insurance each time, rates are determined less by what you do individually, and more by how likely your insurance company thinks an accident is. I pay half of what I paid in Kansas City in rural Pennsylvania in monthly premiums.

The Highway Code states that you must "maintain a speed that allows you to react to changes in road conditions" at all times.

Allowing for the vehicle in front of you to stop suddenly is precisely the sort of thing this is intended to cover.

As a consequence it is always the rear car at fault in situations like this.

Somebody, somewhere, is trying to bs you, you are exempt from all responsibility, even if you had decided to perform an emergency stop in an empty road, it was her look out to allow space to react to this.

I will echo what others say about your premiums though, even if you get the right outcome, you'll be labeled, rightly or not, as a driver more likely to be involved in an accident.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The Highway Code states that you must "maintain a speed that allows you to react to changes in road conditions" at all times.

Allowing for the vehicle in front of you to stop suddenly is precisely the sort of thing this is intended to cover.

As a consequence it is always the rear car at fault in situations like this.

Somebody, somewhere, is trying to bs you, you are exempt from all responsibility, even if you had decided to perform an emergency stop in an empty road, it was her look out to allow space to react to this.

I will echo what others say about your premiums though, even if you get the right outcome, you'll be labeled, rightly or not, as a driver more likely to be involved in an accident.

While I whole heartedly agree with 99% of this I would caution that you got one part wrong;

you are exempt from all responsibility, even if you had decided to perform an emergency stop in an empty road

A driver following you has the right to expect you not to do something which could cause an accident. For example if you perform an emergency stop in the middle of the road for no good reason and someone runs into the back of you, and they can show that there was no reasonable expectation that you do so, eg a straight road with no other traffic, you will bear the responsibility for the accident.

With that in mind, I wonder if the lady in the OP is now claiming that the accident was deliberate on the part of Future to claim against her insurance? A so called crash for cash.

Cheers

Andrew

Clearly drivers are supposed to drive with due care and attention. Part of that of course is not to do an emergency stop for purely frivolous reasons.

However there are various non-obvious reasons why an emergency stop might be necessary even in a clear weather, safe road environment. I mean things that the driver in front can see and you can't, because the car in front is blocking your view. A duck might start to cross the road, or the driver might have a heart attack, or the timing chain snap.

This is why you are supposed to be ready to do an emergency stop without running into the car in front, by using due care and attention to maintain a safe distance.

In other words, if the driver in front stopped for no reason and you ran into him, both of you would be at fault.

Always take pictures. Always Always Always. Have cell take pictures. Of the accident, damage sustain to both vehicles and the surrounding area IE area in front of your vehicle and area behind her/your vehicle. The police report will more likely contain a hand drawn map. If the map does match the pictures then its sided on you. If her report is opposite of yours you have pics saying otherwise.

I didn't do enough at the scene and now I'm probably going to pay for it big time.