Crash investigation

Capri

Was rear ended recently when I had to slow suddenly but insurance are saying I braked too suddenly and caused the accident.

Now I rear ended a car about 5 years ago that slammed on suddenly going thru a green light (Garda car ran a red and caused him to slam on )and I was held liable , a truck rearended me before that and (after a bit of a slog ) he was held liable even tho' he said I'd undercut him.

Now, IMO the vehicle behind me had stopped, but the driver's foot slipped off the brake and he hit me ( about 2mph).

Q - How can I fight this and get to see the cctv 'evidence' the insurance say they've seen, and also check the qualifications of the person who's interpreted the video evidence.

( Had gone to legal firm but they said leave it to insurance's legal experts but I got a claim against me from the other driver and passenger ??)

coylemj

Capri wrote: »

Was rear ended recently when I had to slow suddenly but insurance are saying I braked too suddenly and caused the accident.

There was a time when it was automatically the fault of the guy behind you since he was legally bound to drive at a distance from you which would enable him to stop within the distance clear ahead of him.

However in recent years with the advent of 'staged' accidents, some judges have decided to do away with this assumption and in some cases they will put the blame on the motorist in front if he slammed on the brakes for no good reason. I suspect that this in turn has lead to insurance companies adopting the same attitude.

There's no point in going legal because if your insurance company decides to settle, there's noting you can do about it - it's in your policy document that they reserve the right to settle on your behalf. As they are not exposing you to criminal sanction, it falls under civil law and if they decide to pay the other guy, that's the end of it.

Pat Mustard

Capri wrote: »

( Had gone to legal firm but they said leave it to insurance's legal experts but I got a claim against me from the other driver and passenger ??)

If you have sustained loss, damage or injury, you could see another solicitor about taking action.

coylemj

The Mustard wrote: »

If you have sustained loss, damage or injury, you could see another solicitor about taking action.

The OP's insurance effectively accepts liability on his behalf and pays out and you're saying that he should now employ a lawyer to sue the other guy?

Pat Mustard

coylemj wrote: »

The OP's insurance effectively accepts liability on his behalf and pays out and you're saying that he should now employ a lawyer to sue the other guy?

Plenty of solicitors don't charge for a first consultation in relation to an accident claim.

The insurance companies are not always correct.

If proceedings issue, sometimes matters settle with an apportionment of liability. If matters are decided in court, a judge decides on liability.

If there is injury or damage and if he was rear ended, he could certainly speak to a solicitor.

Perhaps it is something worth having investigated by an engineer.

EDIT: I think that I may see how the confusion arises. The OP mentions two accidents, one recently, and another five years ago. I meant the above in the context of the recent accident, not the old one.

billie1b

coylemj wrote: »

There was a time when it was automatically the fault of the guy behind you since he was legally bound to drive at a distance from you which would enable him to stop within the distance clear ahead of him.

However in recent years with the advent of 'staged' accidents, some judges have decided to do away with this assumption and in some cases they will put the blame on the motorist in front if he slammed on the brakes for no good reason. I suspect that this in turn has lead to insurance companies adopting the same attitude.

There's no point in going legal because if your insurance company decides to settle, there's noting you can do about it - it's in your policy document that they reserve the right to settle on your behalf. As they are not exposing you to criminal sanction, it falls under civil law and if they decide to pay the other guy, that's the end of it.

A girl side-swiped me the other day, I was turning left, she cut in on top of me. Totally her fault, cctv footage of it to prove it, she is still adamant cause she put her indicator on that she had the right to pull in on top of me and that I should have slowed to let her in. Long story short, I rang my insurance and told them under no circumstances are they to pay out anything on my policy as I will be contesting it if the girl decides to make a claim. They told me ok and will contact me if she makes contact with them.
As long as you tell them not to pay out on your policy, they cant

RGS

[As long as you tell them not to pay out on your policy, they cant[/QUOTE]

Incorrect, the policyholder subrogates their rights under the policy of insurance.

The Insurance company will make the final decision on any claim.

billie1b

RGS wrote: »

[As long as you tell them not to pay out on your policy, they cant

Incorrect, the policyholder subrogates their rights under the policy of insurance.

The Insurance company will make the final decision on any claim.[/quote]

Negative, you as the policy holder and payer of the insurance have the say if they pay out or not, if you decide to take it to court to prove it wasn't your fault, the insurance company connot pay out without your consent

coylemj

billie1b wrote: »

Negative, you as the policy holder and payer of the insurance have the say if they pay out or not, if you decide to take it to court to prove it wasn't your fault, the insurance company connot pay out without your consent

Have you read your policy document recently?

Allianz:

We are entitled, at any stage during any claim, to take over and conduct the defence or settlement of the claim, and, at our discretion, to pursue the claim for our own benefit in the name of any person insured.

Aviva:

We may take over and carry out in your name (or that of any person defined as an ‘insured person’ under section 2 of this policy) legal proceedings to defend or settle any claim, or to prosecute in your name (or the name of another person) any claim for our own benefit. We will decide how any proceedings are carried out or how any claim is settled.

Axa:

We may take over and deal with the defence or settlement of any claim in the name of the insured

Liberty:

We will be entitled to take over and carry out in your name (or in the name of any other insured person) the defence or settlement of any claim. We may prosecute, in your name or in the name of any other person (at our expense and for our benefit), to recover any amount we have paid. We will be able to decide how any proceedings or settlements are handled.

billie1b

coylemj wrote: »

Have you read your policy document recently?

Allianz:

We are entitled, at any stage during any claim, to take over and conduct the defence or settlement of the claim, and, at our discretion, to pursue the claim for our own benefit in the name of any person insured.

Aviva:

We may take over and carry out in your name (or that of any person defined as an ‘insured person’ under section 2 of this policy) legal proceedings to defend or settle any claim, or to prosecute in your name (or the name of another person) any claim for our own benefit. We will decide how any proceedings are carried out or how any claim is settled.

Axa:

We may take over and deal with the defence or settlement of any claim in the name of the insured

Yes I read my documents and I know them very well, they say they are 'entitled' to do it but they still need your permission, you are the payer of the policy, you own it, they cannot pay a claim out on your policy without you knowing or giving permission.
Ring your insurance company tomorrow and quote any of those lines you kust posted and ask them to explain it snd they will tell you that they cannot pay out without your permission regardless.

coylemj

If you are entitled to do something, you don't need anyone else's permission to do it. You cannot seriously tell me that the insurance companies inserted those clauses and still need your permission to pay out?

The reason they reserve the right to settle on their terms and at a time chosen by them is because they know that if it's the choice of the policyholder, a lot of them will initially refuse to accept responsibility and thereby expose the insurance company to additional legal expenses because the insured will leave it until the day of the court case to cave in and admit the accident was his fault or will stubbornly drag the case into the court for a hearing the insurance company know they can't win.

billie1b

coylemj wrote: »

If you are entitled to do something, you don't need anyone else's permission to do it. You cannot seriously tell me that the insurance companies inserted those clauses and still need your permission to pay out?

I can tell you that they need your permission, I know of one claim going on 4 years now as the policy owner will not admit liability to the crash and wont allow the her insurance company pay out

coylemj

billie1b wrote: »

I can tell you that they need your permission, I know of one claim going on 4 years now as the policy owner will not admit liability to the crash and wont allow the her insurance company pay out

The only way you can block the insurance company from paying out is by refusing to submit an accident report at which point the insurance company is within it's rights to rescind coverage and leave you on your own.

There have been umpteen cases reported here of policyholders being claimed against for whiplash after minor bumps and the insurance company paid out in the face of the policyholder's objections.

billie1b

coylemj wrote: »

The only way you can block the insurance company from paying out is by refusing to submit an accident report at which point the insurance company is within it's rights to rescind coverage and leave you on your own.

There have been umpteen cases reported here of policyholders being claimed against for whiplash after minor bumps and the insurance company paid out in the face of the policyholder's objections.

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree then

RGS

Bill 1b Insurers dont need the consent of the policyholder to settle claims.

The case you mentioned may be allow run for a number of reasons, there may be passenger claims in the background that were settled and both insurers are allowing the driver v driver case to proceed to determine liability.

The insurance company may believe their policyholder is not fully liable and are looking for an apportionment.

Negotiations may not be progressing as the parties are too far apart in their valuations.

No insurance company will allow a policyholder dictate when or if a claim is settled.

Pat Mustard

billie1b wrote: »

Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree then

It isn't a moot point.

The insurer doesn't need the permission of the insured to settle a claim on a policy of insurance.

To say anything other than that isn't some reasonable argument or interpretation of the law, upon which people can reasonably agree to disagree. It's just plain wrong, and that's all there is to it.