My new toad is trashed! Legally privileged. (1 Viewer)

Aug 27, 2009
19,788
23,032
Hertfordshire
Funster No
8,178
MH
Van Conversion
Exp
40 years
you/she must have had one hell of a lawyer .. was this in the UK or USA ?
any more info that could explain why ?
I must admit I was very proud of the outcome not because she bared any blame but because of the myth that she was guilty. It was in the UK and I lead her legal fight. All insurances involved wanted to settle early not in her favour, as I said it took a couple of years through the insurance company's dragging their feet but was settled at the eleventh hour.:thumb:
 

Jaws

LIFE MEMBER
Sep 26, 2008
23,821
71,977
Thetford Norfolk
Funster No
4,189
MH
C class, Chieftain
Exp
since 2006 ( I think ! )
The only problem I see is that, as already said, insurance companies are BONE idle nowadays.

Your insurer may well just settle for a 50/50.

BUT..............................

No matter what, the premium will rise on renewal due to an accident.. It matters not whose fault it was.
Insurers are just low life thieves who use any crappy excuse to get the nasty sticky fingers on mre of your hard earned
 
Apr 13, 2012
5,504
18,594
Funster No
20,541
MH
Mobilvetta Euroyacht
Exp
1996, then break 'til 2011
Insurance companies used to settle on a 'knock for knock' basis - to them 'blame' isn't too important if there is any doubt about responsibility.

Earlier this year my son wrote off my 2007 Transit by driving over 'something', ripping out the sump plug wrecking the engine - uneconomical repair, just before insurance was to be renewed.

The van had been insured through a broker - no surprise when renewal came round the premium had gone up - to over £2000.

I was so impressed with how the claim had been handled that I thought I'd give the insuance company a call direct - new premium £760 !!

I asked if the premium was correct - "Yes" - even had the claim on the insurance docs when they came through.

????????????? don't understand, but not complaining

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2008
12,258
44,933
Norfolk
Funster No
1,575
MH
Nearly Tugging
Exp
Since 2004
Sorry Larrynwin, not always so cut and dried. I have said on here before that My daughter hit a stationary car from behind, it took a couple of years but she ended up being paid out in full with zero blame.

Dont get it Buttons , how is a stationary car to blame :Doh:
 
OP
OP
Emmenay

Emmenay

Free Member
Dec 11, 2011
505
481
Funster No
19,163
MH
Swift Kon-tiki 600
Exp
Since 2011
Seems even an opened and shut case may be ajar

Trikimiki, some good valid points in your earlier message, duly noted thanks :thumb:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Aug 27, 2009
19,788
23,032
Hertfordshire
Funster No
8,178
MH
Van Conversion
Exp
40 years
Dont get it Buttons , how is a stationary car to blame :Doh:
You are sounding like the third party's insures. :whatthe:
I'm not going into detail but, it will depend why the car in front stopped and why you were forced into the stationary vehicle. I have two years of communication filed including sworn court statements by all parties. The final outcome was admittance of guilt by a third party but the process is not for the faint hearted. First thing you need to do is read the statements of everyone involved.:thumb:
 

dave newell

Free Member
Oct 31, 2008
3,262
4,369
Telford, Shropshire
Funster No
4,733
MH
Home converted PVC
Exp
26yrs
Maybe I missed something because I didn't read all five pages of postings on this but from your original post it ppears you are asking for the OK on your wife's statement before submitting it? This leads me to wonder if its as accurate as you claim? Sorry if that offends but if it really is a true and factual statement of what happened why do you need us to say if its alright or not?

IF it happened as your wife's statement lays it out then there is no case to answer but if it isn't quite as accurate as it could be then there may be a grey area. for example:

Your wife had partially lost control due to the weather conditions and was in imminent danger of rear ending the last of the stationary cars so turned to the right/left to avoid a collision not reallising that the BMW was already taking that same course of evasive action. This puts her in front of the BMW, potentially at the last moment when BMW driver has no room or time to avoid a colision, when he tries he broadsides into her causing the damage to the doors of his car.


Not saying this is what happened at all but still wondering why you need our support for your wife's full and accurate statement?

D.
 
Feb 22, 2008
12,258
44,933
Norfolk
Funster No
1,575
MH
Nearly Tugging
Exp
Since 2004
The rule of the road is as I stated earlier, but if the driver of the car in front causes a collision by careless or dangerous driving that may be different, certainly as far as an insurance claim is concerned.
But it does not alter the fact that the following driver should be driving at a safe distance and is able to stop safely whatever the circumstances.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

stcyr

Free Member
Apr 11, 2011
1,765
1,160
Normandie
Funster No
16,005
MH
A class
Exp
On & off, since 1966 - fulltime since 2005
It's quite simple - if someone drives into something else he/she/it isn't driving safely/properly ...
 
OP
OP
Emmenay

Emmenay

Free Member
Dec 11, 2011
505
481
Funster No
19,163
MH
Swift Kon-tiki 600
Exp
Since 2011
Maybe I missed something because I didn't read all five pages of postings on this but from your original post it ppears you are asking for the OK on your wife's statement before submitting it? This leads me to wonder if its as accurate as you claim? Sorry if that offends but if it really is a true and factual statement of what happened why do you need us to say if its alright or not?

IF it happened as your wife's statement lays it out then there is no case to answer but if it isn't quite as accurate as it could be then there may be a grey area. for example:

Your wife had partially lost control due to the weather conditions and was in imminent danger of rear ending the last of the stationary cars so turned to the right/left to avoid a collision not reallising that the BMW was already taking that same course of evasive action. This puts her in front of the BMW, potentially at the last moment when BMW driver has no room or time to avoid a colision, when he tries he broadsides into her causing the damage to the doors of his car.


Not saying this is what happened at all but still wondering why you need our support for your wife's full and accurate statement?

D.

Dave your post is exactly why I was asking. :thumb: I am trying to get an idea of any curve balls that may be thrown as a result of the statement, before they actually do. I have no reason to doubt the wifes account and no desire to dress things up but when you get a dispute from a clear cut incident it kind of makes you question everything. I suppose the 'support' thing comes from belonging to a community maybe?
 
Aug 27, 2009
19,788
23,032
Hertfordshire
Funster No
8,178
MH
Van Conversion
Exp
40 years
The rule of the road is as I stated earlier, but[HI] if the driver of the car in front causes a collision by careless or dangerous driving that may be different[/HI], certainly as far as an insurance claim is concerned.


But it does not alter the fact that [HI] the following driver should be driving at a safe distance and isable to stop safely whatever the circumstances[/HI].
Now I am confused.:Wacko:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

dave newell

Free Member
Oct 31, 2008
3,262
4,369
Telford, Shropshire
Funster No
4,733
MH
Home converted PVC
Exp
26yrs
Dave your post is exactly why I was asking. :thumb: I am trying to get an idea of any curve balls that may be thrown as a result of the statement, before they actually do. I have no reason to doubt the wifes account and no desire to dress things up but when you get a dispute from a clear cut incident it kind of makes you question everything. I suppose the 'support' thing comes from belonging to a community maybe?


I'm pleased you weren't offended by my post as that was never my intention, I just don't get the need to ask if the account of events is OK before you submit it. If it got heavily contested and went to court you could lose out simply because you put it in the public domain first and assked for advice.

If it is a true and accurate account of events then there is nothing to worry about, submit and wait for the payout (don't hold your breath though).

D.
 
OP
OP
Emmenay

Emmenay

Free Member
Dec 11, 2011
505
481
Funster No
19,163
MH
Swift Kon-tiki 600
Exp
Since 2011
[HI]I'm pleased you weren't offended by my post as that was never my intention[/HI], I just don't get the need to ask if the account of events is OK before you submit it. If it got heavily contested and went to court you could lose out simply because you put it in the public domain first and assked for advice.

If it is a true and accurate account of events then there is nothing to worry about, submit and wait for the payout (don't hold your breath though).

D.

I certainly wouldn't throw myself to the lions and complain if I got mauled. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Nov 18, 2011
11,857
42,489
Planet Earth
Funster No
18,938
MH
A van
Exp
Over 25 year's
i think you will be OK just don't keep this going on the INTERNET the third party may see it :thumb:
 

TheBig1

LIFE MEMBER
Nov 27, 2011
17,509
42,755
Dorset
Funster No
19,048
MH
A class
Exp
many many years! since I was a kid
as said before, you really should be talking to your insurer and not discussing what to say on an open forum. it matters not that you put legally priviledged or otherwise, you are breaching the terms of your insurance, by not communicating all facts to them without delay

as for the description of the event, it sounds as if the other party holds full blame for not being in control of his vehicle in the prevailing conditions. I would expect the insurers to agree shared blame though to satisfy both claims early. neither party has the right to accept blame as this is for the insurers to agree. get it wrong and you may invalidate your insurance, so be careful what you say or write
 
2

2657

Deleted User
It's quite simple - if someone drives into something else he/she/it isn't driving safely/properly ...

Not always the case, two examples;

It is a well known fraud for cars to cut in sharply in front of a vehicle and then immediately brake hard, you would need to have very quick reactions and possibly be aware of this scam to avoid a rear end shunt.

A coach broke down in thick fog on the M5 last year in the inside lane without lights and was rear ended by a truck whose driver died. I can't remember the exact details but the coach driver was later prosecuted.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

rainbow chasers

Free Member
Oct 30, 2009
3,680
1,725
Mid Cornwall
Funster No
9,132
MH
Various
Exp
9
In this case, it seems fairly straight that the driver going into the rear was to blame for not driving in accordance to the weather conditions - a little harsh it may well be, but that is what snow driving is like - pretty risky!

In this case, I would only add to the statement that the car was straight enough to have it's rear lights clearly visable. It takes away the chance to state that her lights were not visable and were obscuring the lights of the car in front. That said, he would not have hit the rear of her if this was the case - but cover all bases.

I would say, that the fact that she did not hit the vehicle in front of her showed that she had allowed room for error. The fact that she had lost control would back up the guy that hit her, in the fact that there was unavoidale ice on the road. It was unfortunate for him, that he did not have enough space to stop. I wouldn't make assumptions of his speed - he did not have enough space to stop in the conditions - that is where the case lays.

Insurers know alot more than you think, and in cash for crash type of incidents, they are well aware of drivers 'having form' for similar incidents. I was accused of hitting a vehicle a few years ago, which I didn't - be it mistaken identity of my vehicle or whatever. The guy had 6 witnesses, all giving my reg number and vehicle description. The police were convinced without even seeing that my vehicle had no damage, even (illegally apparently) handing the guy my insurance details and starting a prosecutiuon for failing to stop and report and accident.

The insurers (direct line at the time) were excellent. I gave them proof that the vehicle was not there, gave them photographic evidence of the vehicle being unmarked and they looked into it for me. They told me that they were 'well aware of the driver' and when I asked if he had done this before, she said she couldn't say yes or no for legal reasons. But it affirmed my suspicion as the police report stated a scratched bumper, and his claim was for bumper, bonnet, wings and god only knows what else.

His insurer dropped it as soon as they were presented with this evidence.

In your case, I would suggest that the driver behind would be to blame in this case due to not allowing room to stop safely. It may have been that he didn't notice until he got over the brow and your wifes' car meant that he had one car length less to stop - so unfortantely for him, he couldn't. Bit he will be blamed for it - just as a person would if they hit the car in front, after the car in front of the one he hit slammed on their brakes.

The only reason the person in front can be blamed, is if they stopped abruptly without reason.... a line of queuing traffic is a good enough reason!
 
Nov 30, 2009
6,543
148,327
Pickering
Funster No
9,521
MH
PVC the PUG
Exp
Since 2009 with motorhomes several caravans then tents before that.
Either way , your insurance will go up. :Angry:
Ralph got rear ended whilst he was stationary off a motorway slip road waiting at the roundabout. The woman smashed so hard into the back of him , she shunted him through the lights into the traffic onto the roundabout. ( it could have been worse , traffic could have still been flowing from the right. )
His tipper pick up truck only suffered broken lights and bar. He genuinely got bad whip lash .
But her BMW went under the tipper and buckled all the bonnet.
Hes just been charged more insurance ,for this years premium , because of it !
He kept the no claims though.
"Sorry unfortunately that's how it works , im afraid ." He was told when he complained.
 

sedge

Funster
Jul 7, 2009
5,493
13,029
Nr Jct 3 M6
Funster No
7,396
MH
C class
Exp
Aug 09 to date 9,000 miles!
Excuse me, how do YOU know the lights were either visible or even ON ?

You appear to be making a rather sweeping assumption there.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Feb 22, 2008
12,258
44,933
Norfolk
Funster No
1,575
MH
Nearly Tugging
Exp
Since 2004
In this case, it seems fairly straight that the driver going into the rear was to blame for not driving in accordance to the weather conditions - a little harsh it may well be, but that is what snow driving is like - pretty risky!

In this case, I would only add to the statement that the car was straight enough to have it's rear lights clearly visable. It takes away the chance to state that her lights were not visable and were obscuring the lights of the car in front. That said, he would not have hit the rear of her if this was the case - but cover all bases.

I would say, that the fact that she did not hit the vehicle in front of her showed that she had allowed room for error. The fact that she had lost control would back up the guy that hit her, in the fact that there was unavoidale ice on the road. [HI]It was unfortunate for him, that he did not have enough space to stop. [/HI]I wouldn't make assumptions of his speed - he did not have enough space to stop in the conditions - that is where the case lays.

Insurers know alot more than you think, and in cash for crash type of incidents, they are well aware of drivers 'having form' for similar incidents. I was accused of hitting a vehicle a few years ago, which I didn't - be it mistaken identity of my vehicle or whatever. The guy had 6 witnesses, all giving my reg number and vehicle description. The police were convinced without even seeing that my vehicle had no damage, even (illegally apparently) handing the guy my insurance details and starting a prosecutiuon for failing to stop and report and accident.

The insurers (direct line at the time) were excellent. I gave them proof that the vehicle was not there, gave them photographic evidence of the vehicle being unmarked and they looked into it for me. They told me that they were 'well aware of the driver' and when I asked if he had done this before, she said she couldn't say yes or no for legal reasons. But it affirmed my suspicion as the police report stated a scratched bumper, and his claim was for bumper, bonnet, wings and god only knows what else.

His insurer dropped it as soon as they were presented with this evidence.

In your case, I would suggest that the driver behind would be to blame in this case due to not allowing room to stop safely. It may have been that he didn't notice until he got over the brow and your wifes' car meant that he had one car length less to stop - so unfortantely for him, he couldn't. Bit he will be blamed for it - just as a person would if they hit the car in front, after the car in front of the one he hit slammed on their brakes.

The only reason the person in front can be blamed, is if they stopped abruptly without reason.... a line of queuing traffic is a good enough reason!



I don't see how it is unfortunate for him , he was driving too fast for the prevailing conditions.
The unfortunate one in this case appears to be the driver that was rear ended by another driver with insufficient skill to read and adjust to the conditions.
 

chatter

Free Member
Aug 3, 2009
3,689
937
cheshire
Funster No
7,812
MH
5th wheel
Exp
10+
hopefully the person who was in front of your wife will/would be a witness to the fact that your wife had stopped without hitting them and that the car following your wife didnt stop before hitting her
 
Feb 27, 2011
14,671
74,882
UK
Funster No
15,452
MH
Self Build
Exp
Since 2005
A friend of mine rear ended a stationary car. It wasn't his fault and the other persons insurance ended up paying...

He was driving down a road in clear sunny conditions. He was doing 50mph in a 50mph zone. A car pulled out almost directly in front of him and stopped dead. He couldn't stop in time and couldn't overtake due to oncoming traffic and slammed into the back of the stationary vehicle.

The other guy tried to say the road was clear when he pulled out and he was reading his map when he got rear ended...

Luckily a passing pedestrian witnessed the whole thing and got in touch with the police independently. He didn't want to get involved at the scene as it had gotten boisterous pretty quickly.

So it is possible for a stationary car to be at fault.

Not so in this case. My opinion would be it was his fault not your wifes but with any legal issue common sense doesn't always win out:Doh:

Good luck with it though

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

scotjimland

LIFE MEMBER
Jul 25, 2007
2,086
9,025
Suffolk Coastal District, UK
Funster No
15
MH
Timberland
A friend of mine rear ended a stationary car. It wasn't his fault and the other persons insurance ended up paying...

He was driving down a road in clear sunny conditions. He was doing 50mph in a 50mph zone. A car pulled out almost directly in front of him and stopped dead. He couldn't stop in time and couldn't overtake due to oncoming traffic and slammed into the back of the stationary vehicle.

The other guy tried to say the road was clear when he pulled out and he was reading his map when he got rear ended...

Luckily a passing pedestrian witnessed the whole thing and got in touch with the police independently. He didn't want to get involved at the scene as it had gotten boisterous pretty quickly.

So it is possible for a stationary car to be at fault.

Not so in this case. My opinion would be it was his fault not your wifes but with any legal issue common sense doesn't always win out:Doh:

Good luck with it though

Your friend was still partly to blame, he was either driving too fast for the road conditions and or not being alert to the possible hazard of a car pulling out from a side road..

Read Highway code para 146

Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on.

[HI]In particular do not treat speed limits as a target[/HI]. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit, take the road and traffic conditions into account.

Be prepared for unexpected or difficult situations, for example, the road being blocked beyond a blind bend.

Be prepared to adjust your speed as a precaution
[HI] where there are junctions, be prepared for road users emerging[/HI] in side roads and country lanes look out for unmarked junctions where nobody has priority
be prepared to stop at traffic control systems, road works, pedestrian crossings or traffic lights as necessary
children, are looking the other way, they may step out into the road without seeing you.
 
Last edited:

SuperMike

Free Member
Apr 28, 2010
2,477
7,593
St Albans
Funster No
11,285
MH
Winnebago Sightseer
Exp
11yrs, but many years a tugger.
Whose 23' 9" ? Do I know him ? :thumb: More importantly, does he know we are going away for Christmas and the New Year ? The VeryOldMoMan does. :ROFLMAO:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Funsters who are viewing this thread

Back
Top