Accident/Insurance question

oompaloompa

Was stopped at traffic lights during the week, my car rolled into car in front. I'm not really sure what happened, think I just got distracted and didn't notice the car rolling. I was stopped usual few feet behind car, my car was in first gear, and I'd foot on clutch and brake. Car rolled and tapped the car in front's bumper.

I wasn't even sure the car had hit the other car cos it was such a light tap. We both got out, not a scratch on either car and everyone was fine so no guards called. We exchanged contact details on the insistance of one of the occupants of the other car. I called the driver that evening, apologised again and asked if everything was ok - it was, so they said not to worry about it, all was ok.

Next night, I get a call from an occupant of car saying they are just calling to let me know they have a sore neck. I ask if they've been to doctor or hospital, they hadn't. Said they just wanted to let me know. The following day, same person calls me, saying another occupant of car has sore neck. Again this person hasn't been to doctor. Apparently they hadn't time. They have little English, but picked up the word whiplash very easily :mad:

On advice from friends, I contacted insurance company to let them know. Insurance company have advised that they are sending an assessor out. This is fine, there is no damage at all to either car. The girl in insurance company that I spoke to said that it won't matter if the assessor says there is no damage, that if the independent doctor is told by these people that they've a sore neck, there is no way of disproving this and therefore they will get a payout.

Surely this is wrong? There is no way they have whiplash, they are after easy money. There was no power behind the car when it tipped bumper so impact was hardly noticable.

What is likelihood that they'll get a payout on basis that they say they
have a sore neck, with a report from assessor saying there is no damage?

I'm really annoyed by my insurance company's attitude that they have to take the other person in good faith regarding injury.

In the case that they do get money, can I contest this as I don't feel this is something I should have to lose my NCB for.

Crasp

Hopefully the assessor will realise that with no damage to either car and no medical reports, the likelihood of whiplash is very low....

djimi

If there is no damage to either car then there is no whiplash, end of story. Id imagine it would take any insurance assessor 5 seconds to reach that conclusion.

Surely a doctors report has to be taken in conjunction with the insurance assessors reports? I mean, if the person has a case of whiplash but there is no damage to their car, can the other party not rightfully claim that it is possible the injury was caused by something else, as there is sufficient doubt that it came from the accident given the lack of damage?

coylemj

oompaloompa wrote: »

In the case that they do get money, can I contest this as I don't feel this is something I should have to lose my NCB for.

Sadly if the insurance company decides to pay out then there is nothing you can do about it. It's impossible to disprove whiplash so the insurance company will probably pay them off as nuisance claims and recoup the money from you in the next few years while you claw back your NCB.

The insurance company has nothing to lose as long as the claim stays below a couple of thousand (which you will eventually pay) so as far as they are concerned the quicker they settle, the less paperwork and hassle it is for them, that's the sad reality of motor insurance claims these days.

Kristopherus

Watch you insurance Co. like a hawk. They can settle with the claimant without your prmission. Insist on a medical report & also insist that they keep you updated at all times.

emanresu

oompaloompa wrote: »

Was stopped at traffic lights during the week, my car rolled into car in front. I'm not really sure what happened, think I just got distracted and didn't notice the car rolling. I was stopped usual few feet behind car, my car was in first gear, and I'd foot on clutch and brake. Car rolled and tapped the car in front's bumper.

Do you know for sure that your car moved forward?.
Is it possible that they reversed, (maybe with the reversing light disconnected)?

coylemj

djimi wrote: »

Surely a doctors report has to be taken in conjunction with the insurance assessors reports? I mean, if the person has a case of whiplash but there is no damage to their car, can the other party not rightfully claim that it is possible the injury was caused by something else, as there is sufficient doubt that it came from the accident given the lack of damage?

Interesting theory but it won't stand up. The 'medical' evidence in whiplash claims is all based on what the patient tells the doctor so these people will go to an ambulance chasing lawyer who will send them to a friendly doctor whom he knows will write a good report stating that the patient's problems all arose out of the car accident e.g. I examined this guy who said he was a contortionist in Duffy's circus, then he was in a car which was hit from behind and now he can't sleep at night and has trouble twisting his neck in the way he used to.

djimi

coylemj wrote: »

Interesting theory but it won't stand up. The 'medical' evidence in whiplash claims is all based on what the patient tells the doctor so these people will go to an ambulance chasing lawyer who will send them to a friendly doctor whom he knows will write a good report stating that the patient's problems all arose out of the car accident e.g. I examined this guy who said he was a contortionist in Duffy's circus, then he was in a car which was hit from behind and now he can't sleep at night and has trouble twisting his neck in the way he used to.

I dont understand this tho. If there is no evidence that the accident caused the injury, and the lack of damage to either car is a strong statement of this, then how can the claimant say that is what caused their whiplash? Can the OP not counter by claiming that it is entirely possible that some other incident caused the whiplash, given that the evidence would back up this theory?

oompaloompa

OP here, I'm so stressed about this.... I really don't need this hassle at the moment.

I don't see how insurance co could just pay out and take a hit even though it's a totally made up claim. Surely they act on common sense too?

No damage to cars and claimants are unemployed folk who you would regularly associate with the Big Issue and begging at junctions?

djimi

You may do well to go see a solicitor to get advise about this.

cojomo2

oompaloompa wrote: »

OP here, I'm so stressed about this.... I really don't need this hassle at the moment.

I don't see how insurance co could just pay out and take a hit even though it's a totally made up claim. Surely they act on common sense too?

No damage to cars and claimants are unemployed folk who you would regularly associate with the Big Issue and begging at junctions?

feel very sorry for you, what an awful situation to be in. Pity you didnt see what type of folk they were immediately, that way you could just deny you hit them, assuming there was zero damage...

would it be too late to claim that it was infact them who rolled back into you? Say you only realised after that you had you handbrake on so that you think it was unlikely that you rolled into them..

they are clearly out to screw you, so do whatever you have to do to make it difficult for them.

mathepac

Kristopherus wrote: »

Watch you insurance Co. like a hawk. They can settle with the claimant without your prmission. Insist on a medical report & also insist that they keep you updated at all times.

There is nothing OP can insist on and OP has no powers or rights to influence the decisions to settle. Read the terms of your own insurance policy. The comany reserves to itself the right to settle any and all claims without reference to the insured as it is the company's money (or more correctly other policy holders' money) that is used to settle claims.

coylemj

mathepac wrote: »

There is nothing OP can insist on and OP has no powers or rights to influence the decisions to settle. Read the terms of your own insurance policy. The comany reserves to itself the right to settle any and all claims without reference to the insured as it is the company's money (or more correctly other policy holders' money) that is used to settle claims.

That is 100% correct which makes the advice to the OP to consult a lawyer questionable, that will cost money for no good effect since the insurance have the absolute right to settle the claim without reference to the OP or his solicitors.

As to the morals of the situation, just look at the number of ambulance chasing lawyers with full page ads. in the Golden Pages and you can see that it is a lucrative business where morals count for zilch.

CiniO

Are you guys trying to say, that insurance company are going to pay out to someone even in case that insured person thinks it's a scam?

Is it not possible to call insurer and tell them not to pay out.
Insurance is actually there to cover your liability to third parties, so while they are paying they are doing it for you.
If you don't agree to pay, why should they pay.

Let the guys sue you and see how the case will go in the court.
Just get a good lawyer.

oldyouth

CiniO wrote: »

Are you guys trying to say, that insurance company are going to pay out to someone even in case that insured person thinks it's a scam?

Is it not possible to call insurer and tell them not to pay out.
Insurance is actually there to cover your liability to third parties, so while they are paying they are doing it for you.
If you don't agree to pay, why should they pay.

Let the guys sue you and see how the case will go in the court.
Just get a good lawyer.

It's one thing thinking its a scam and another proving it.

You can't instruct your insurer not to pay if they think it is the best course of action. Technically, they can say "right, your on your own but don't come back to us if you end up with a big judgement against you" because most people don't have the resources to do so and, secondly, your amateur attempts to deal with the situation could end up with an even higher settlement

coylemj

CiniO wrote: »

Are you guys trying to say, that insurance company are going to pay out to someone even in case that insured person thinks it's a scam?

Yes, it happens all the time with small claims, the insurance company effectively pays people to go away knowing that they can recoup the money from the insured by reducing or wiping out his NCB, safe in the knowledge that no other insurance company will quote him for a renewal in the meantime.

CiniO wrote: »

Is it not possible to call insurer and tell them not to pay out.

You can but they will point out the Ts and Cs of the policy which allow them to settle any claim independent of what you thimk is right or wrong.

CiniO wrote: »

Insurance is actually there to cover your liability to third parties, so while they are paying they are doing it for you.

Technically true but since they are not exposing you to any criminal action you can't do anything to stop them paying out.

CiniO wrote: »

If you don't agree to pay, why should they pay.

Because they don't care about the rights and wrongs of the situation, they just want the matter to go away.

CiniO wrote: »

Let the guys sue you and see how the case will go in the court.

If the insurance company pays out then the (alleged) injured partes will sign 'full and final settlement' acceptance letters so they can't sue.

CiniO wrote: »

Just get a good lawyer.

He/she will tell you that there's nothing you can do about it. This would be throwing good money after bad.

mathepac

coylemj wrote: »

... He/she will tell you that there's nothing you can do about it. This would be throwing good money after bad.

Agreed. A really good lawyer would politely point such a potential client in the direction of a good mental health professional.

meathstevie

coylemj wrote: »

Sadly if the insurance company decides to pay out then there is nothing you can do about it. It's impossible to disprove whiplash so the insurance company will probably pay them off as nuisance claims and recoup the money from you in the next few years while you claw back your NCB.

The insurance company has nothing to lose as long as the claim stays below a couple of thousand (which you will eventually pay) so as far as they are concerned the quicker they settle, the less paperwork and hassle it is for them, that's the sad reality of motor insurance claims these days.

It's very easily disproved by pictures or video footage by a fraud investigator and as long as the actions by the subjects that have been documented were taking place in a public place there's no data protection or privacy issues either. Let's say that the investigator costs 3k, still wee buns compared to paying potentially fraudulently obtained compensation for whiplash to 2 or 3 people.