3 car collision - Question

kaiserrussel

Hi there

I wanted to ask a question about insurance and coverage. This relates to situations where there are multi cars in this case 3 cars.
So here is the scenario:
Car 3 from rear hits car 2 and pushes car 2 into car 1.
Who is at fault? I would assume car 1 would claim for damages etc from car 2 and car 2 would do likewise from car 3 and insurance company of car 2 would recuperate the amount paid out to car 1 from car 3’s insurance company?
The problem here is that car 3/car 3 insurance company is disputing the situation, they are saying car 2 hit car 1 first and then car 3 hit car 2.

This is not what happened. What options are out there for driver of car two who is essentially not in the wrong
Thoughts?

thanks

MarkR

Three drivers, three statements. Do two of them match?

dodzy

If car 3 hits car 2 and in turn 2 hits 1 (me) , then car 3 (at the back) is liable. Happened to me a fortnight ago in Blanch Shopping Centre. Insurance of car 3 covered all repairs.

kaiserrussel

Car one cant confirm the number of "bumps" felt....

kaiserrussel

dodzy wrote: »

If car 3 hits car 2 and in turn 2 hits 1, then car 3 (at the back ) is liable. Happened to me a fortnight ago in Blanch Shopping Centre. Insurance of car 3 covered all repairs.

yes but did car 3 in your case, admit they were in the wrong?

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

How many bumps did car one feel ?

1 bump means 1 hit.

2 bumps means 2 hits.

so 1 bump means car 3 pushed car 2 into car 1

2 bumps means car 1 was hit by car 2 and hit again because car 3 hit car 2 after the first hit.

i had this a few months ago and car 3 admitted fault and insurance took care of it for car 1 anyway

MarkR

kaiserrussel wrote: »

Hi there

I wanted to ask a question about insurance and coverage. This relates to situations where there are multi cars in this case 3 cars.
So here is the scenario:
Car 3 from rear hits car 2 and pushes car 2 into car 1.
Who is at fault? I would assume car 1 would claim for damages etc from car 2 and car 2 would do likewise from car 3 and insurance company of car 2 would recuperate the amount paid out to car 1 from car 3’s insurance company?
The problem here is that car 3/car 3 insurance company is disputing the situation, they are saying car 2 hit car 1 first and then car 3 hit car 2.

This is not what happened. What options are out there for driver of car two who is essentially not in the wrong
Thoughts?

thanks

Even if 2 hit 1, then 3 hit 2, three still has to pay for 2. Should have left adequate stopping distance.

kaiserrussel

MarkR wrote: »

Even if 2 hit 1, then 3 hit 2, three still has to pay for 2. Should have left adequate stopping distance.

Thanks, this is so frustrating, driver of car one cant say for sure so It seems insurance company's are breaking it down as I mentioned, this is such an injustice. does the garda report have any weight here? The insurance company of car 3 never contacted me about viewing damage.

djimi

What exactly happened? If it was a case that you all had to stop suddenly then the two separate collision story might be believable. If it was a case that car 3 ran into the back of car 2 who was stopped at traffic lights then Id say its extremely unlikely that two separate collisions occurred in the space of a couple of seconds.

kaiserrussel

djimi wrote: »

What exactly happened? If it was a case that you all had to stop suddenly then the two separate collision story might be believable. If it was a case that car 3 ran into the back of car 2 who was stopped at traffic lights then Id say its extremely unlikely that two separate collisions occurred in the space of a couple of seconds.

Car 1 was turning right at a junction, car 2 was stopping a safe distance from car 1 and car 3 didn't leave enough room to stop behind car 2 and thus crashed into car 2 and pushed car 2 into car 1. Driver of car 3 is saying car 2 hit car 1 first

dodzy

kaiserrussel wrote: »

Thanks, this is so frustrating, driver of car one cant say for sure so It seems insurance company's are breaking it down as I mentioned, this is such an injustice. does the garda report have any weight here? The insurance company of car 3 never contacted me about viewing damage.

Which one was kaiser in ? 1,2 or 3

kaiserrussel

dodzy wrote: »

Which one was kaiser in ? 1,2 or 3

2

Cabaal

kaiserrussel wrote: »

Car 1 was turning right at a junction, car 2 was stopping a safe distance from car 1 and car 3 didn't leave enough room to stop behind car 2 and thus crashed into car 2 and pushed car 2 into car 1. Driver of car 3 is saying car 2 hit car 1 first

Seems unlikely situation,
car 2 hits car 1 and car 3 just happens to drive into car 2 moments later...yeah cause thats likely

dodzy

kaiserrussel wrote: »

2

So you know exactly what happened. I'm guessing that you were stopped just shy of car 1, not on the brakes, and boom. Shunted. Much damage to yours or car 1 ?

ants09

This happened me years ago, in a 3 car collision, i was the first car.

The Garda that came to the scene asked me, how many bumps did i feel

if i felt one bump it meant car 3 hit car 2 which push car 2 into me

if i felt two bumps it meant car 2 hit me first then car 3 hit car 2

Since i felt only 1 bump it meant car 3 push car 2 into me and the Garda said
i would claim off car 2 insurance and car 2 insurance would claim off car 3 because he was at fault.

Spook_ie

kaiserrussel wrote: »

Car 1 was turning right at a junction, car 2 was stopping a safe distance from car 1 and car 3 didn't leave enough room to stop behind car 2 and thus crashed into car 2 and pushed car 2 into car 1. Driver of car 3 is saying car 2 hit car 1 first

Wasn't really a safe distance then.
For a car to be pushed forward into another they'd surely need to be reasonably close and the car to not have footbrake/hand brake engaged

quadrifoglio verde

Spook_ie wrote: »

Wasn't really a safe distance then.
For a car to be pushed forward into another they'd surely need to be reasonably close and the car to not have footbrake/hand brake engaged

But the accident wouldn't have happened if car 3 stopped in time, if what car 2 is saying is true

MarkR

Spook_ie wrote: »

Wasn't really a safe distance then.
For a car to be pushed forward into another they'd surely need to be reasonably close and the car to not have footbrake/hand brake engaged

I think we've all edged close to the car in front while waiting in traffic. Good practice to have hand or footbrake on, but certainly not worth pulling the OP on.

dodzy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Wasn't really a safe distance then.
For a car to be pushed forward into another they'd surely need to be reasonably close and the car to not have footbrake/hand brake engaged

Ah would ya go way oua that. We all do it on a level surface.

kaiserrussel

Spook_ie wrote: »

Wasn't really a safe distance then.
For a car to be pushed forward into another they'd surely need to be reasonably close and the car to not have footbrake/hand brake engaged

Spook I don't agree with what your saying, but this is a discussion so fair enough. Accident wouldn't have happened if car 3 was in a position to stop safely themselves

dodzy

Any progress kaiser ? I'd be surprised if you're hit in any way for this. Stand fast with the insurance. Don't roll over.

Caliden

Spook_ie wrote: »

Wasn't really a safe distance then.
For a car to be pushed forward into another they'd surely need to be reasonably close and the car to not have footbrake/hand brake engaged

Define safe distance?

I was taught that you should be see the rear tyres of the car in front when stopped so that's about 2 metre distance?

That's not going to do much if the car behind doesn't stop on time.

You also have no clue of the damage done and what speed the 3rd car was doing so stop trying to act like you know what you're talking about.

The_Pretender

If you're stopped at all on a road used by other cars then you either have the handbrake on or have the car in gear. Foot brake is of very little use as if you are in an accident it is quite likely that your feet will come off the pedals.
No need to get on the OP's case about it and I understand people defending the OP as ultimately car 3 was at fault, but people really need to make sure that the handbrake is up before they ever take the car out of gear. Very good habit to get into.

djimi

The_Pretender wrote: »

If you're stopped at all on a road used by other cars then you either have the handbrake on or have the car in gear. Foot brake is of very little use as if you are in an accident it is quite likely that your feet will come off the pedals.
No need to get on the OP's case about it and I understand people defending the OP as ultimately car 3 was at fault, but people really need to make sure that the handbrake is up before they ever take the car out of gear. Very good habit to get into.

It really depends on the situation in fairness; the OP sounds like they were expecting to momentarily be waiting behind the car while it turned right; in this instance Id say very few people would take the car out of gear and pull up the handbrake. Indeed, its probably pretty bad practice from the point of view that it would then create a delay in taking off.

The_Pretender

djimi wrote: »

It really depends on the situation in fairness; the OP sounds like they were expecting to momentarily be waiting behind the car while it turned right; in this instance Id say very few people would take the car out of gear and pull up the handbrake. Indeed, its probably pretty bad practice from the point of view that it would then create a delay in taking off.

Yeah that's fair enough once the car is in gear it should stall and stop moving, so long as the car is in gear or has the handbrake up and you can see the back wheels of the car in front then there's not much else you can do.

Spook_ie

dodzy wrote: »

Ah would ya go way oua that. We all do it on a level surface.

Speak for your self, I try not to because to be able to pull around a vehicle that breaks down/stalls/whatever requires a certain distance between you and the vehicle in front

djimi

Rule of thumb I was thought when learning was stop far enough back so that you can see the road underneath the car in front. Has always served me well in my 13 or so years of driving so far...

alias no.9

How did the damage balance out between cars? Is the back of car 1 more badly damaged than the back of car 2? How about the front of car 2 V's the front of car 3?

goz83

It should be obvious to an assessor what happened. If car 2 had hit car 1 first, then the damage will likely be lower, due to braking hard. If the damage is higher, then the car was shunted forward, and the damage will be level. At least that's my understanding of it.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

djimi wrote: »

Rule of thumb I was thought when learning was stop far enough back so that you can see the road underneath the car in front. Has always served me well in my 13 or so years of driving so far...

This x1000

So many idiots Park right up your arse. So annoying !

When i was rear ended this is why i didnt hit the car in front of me !!!

GSBellew

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

This x1000

So many idiots Park right up your arse. So annoying !

When i was rear ended this is why i didnt hit the car in front of me !!!

Completely irrelevant from a liability point of view though.

If someone were to stop 2mm or 2 M away and are shunted into you by the car behind the car behind (3) is liable, simply because if they (3) stopped in time no accident would have occurred.

dr.fuzzenstein

Spook_ie wrote: »

Speak for your self, I try not to because to be able to pull around a vehicle that breaks down/stalls/whatever requires a certain distance between you and the vehicle in front

Irrelevant and nothing but personal preference.
Please state the traffic law that stipulates minimum distance to the car in front whilst stationary in traffic and how that is relevant to accident claims.
I'm aware of the 2 second rule, but how does that work when stationary? There's a pebble on the ground between me and the car in front. 2 seconds later, yep, pebble still there.
Car 3 hit and shunted car 2 into car 1.
That's the facts and that is where the argument ends. Anything else is just drivel.
Trying to make car 2 responsible is cnutbaggery by the insurance or the driver of car 3 who is obviously trying to slime his way out of a bigger claim.

Spook_ie

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Irrelevant and nothing but personal preference.
Please state the traffic law that stipulates minimum distance to the car in front whilst stationary in traffic and how that is relevant to accident claims.
I'm aware of the 2 second rule, but how does that work when stationary? There's a pebble on the ground between me and the car in front. 2 seconds later, yep, pebble still there.
Car 3 hit and shunted car 2 into car 1.
That's the facts and that is where the argument ends. Anything else is just drivel.
Trying to make car 2 responsible is cnutbaggery by the insurance or the driver of car 3 who is obviously trying to slime his way out of a bigger claim.

Not irrelevant at all, the easiest way to avoid shennanigans is to avoid the accident altogether if possible, leaving a gap between you and the vehicle in front is just common sense, didn't realise you needed a traffic law for common sense

dr.fuzzenstein

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not irrelevant at all, the easiest way to avoid shennanigans is to avoid the accident altogether if possible, leaving a gap between you and the vehicle in front is just common sense, didn't realise you needed a traffic law for common sense

That's all very well and good and of course there is always room for common sense.
But in the case of the OP it is irrelevant, he's had his accident and someone is trying to fcuk him over and what he needs now is advise on how to deal with that. IMO, someone who rear ends a car so hard that he shunts it into the car in front and then tries to blame someone else for his idiocy is a dirtbag with no regard for anyone but themselves.

Spook_ie

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's all very well and good and of course there is always room for common sense.
But in the case of the OP it is irrelevant, he's had his accident and someone is trying to fcuk him over and what he needs now is advise on how to deal with that. IMO, someone who rear ends a car so hard that he shunts it into the car in front and then tries to blame someone else for his idiocy is a dirtbag with no regard for anyone but themselves.

But in this case their appears to be no independent witnesses, no dash cam, in fact nothing to support either version of events. Would seem to be a case of offering hindsight advice is all that's left

dr.fuzzenstein

kaiserrussel wrote: »

Hi there

I wanted to ask a question about insurance and coverage. This relates to situations where there are multi cars in this case 3 cars.
So here is the scenario:
Car 3 from rear hits car 2 and pushes car 2 into car 1.
Who is at fault? I would assume car 1 would claim for damages etc from car 2 and car 2 would do likewise from car 3 and insurance company of car 2 would recuperate the amount paid out to car 1 from car 3’s insurance company?
The problem here is that car 3/car 3 insurance company is disputing the situation, they are saying car 2 hit car 1 first and then car 3 hit car 2.

This is not what happened. What options are out there for driver of car two who is essentially not in the wrong
Thoughts?

thanks

Spook_ie wrote: »

But in this case their appears to be no independent witnesses, no dash cam, in fact nothing to support either version of events. Would seem to be a case of offering hindsight advice is all that's left

So there you go OP, I hope Spook has comprehensively answered your question.
If you want some real advise, I'd say lean on your insurance every day, don't let this go. This was not your fault and do not let them do you for it. You could roll over and play dead (in which case you will get steamrollered) or you could fight this. Do not underestimate the power of badgering people on the phone every day.
If in doubt seek legal advise. It is 100% the fault of the car that rear ended you. I was in a similar situation. Traffic at a traffic light had started to move, we all moved off and then stopped again unexpectedly. Driver behind me was dreaming and hit me and also shunted me into the car ahead of me. There was, thankfully, never a question of who is to blame, because the situation is clear as day and pretty much cut'n'dry.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is just following Boards rule #1: "I didn't hear your question, but you're the OP and therefore you're at fault". It's lazy trolling.

Valetta

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So there you go OP, I hope Spook has comprehensively answered your question.
If you want some real advise, I'd say lean on your insurance every day, don't let this go. This was not your fault and do not let them do you for it. You could roll over and play dead (in which case you will get steamrollered) or you could fight this. Do not underestimate the power of badgering people on the phone every day.
If in doubt seek legal advise. It is 100% the fault of the car that rear ended you. I was in a similar situation. Traffic at a traffic light had started to move, we all moved off and then stopped again unexpectedly. Driver behind me was dreaming and hit me and also shunted me into the car ahead of me. There was, thankfully, never a question of who is to blame, because the situation is clear as day and pretty much cut'n'dry.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is just following Boards rule #1: "I didn't hear your question, but you're the OP and therefore you're at fault". It's lazy trolling.

Were you able to prove that the car behind you hit you before you hit the car in front?

Or should we all just take your word for it?

dr.fuzzenstein

Valetta wrote: »

Were you able to prove that the car behind you hit you before you hit the car in front?

Or should we all just take your word for it?

There will also be plausibility. How likely is scenario 1, car 3 hits car 2 and shunts it into car 1 and how likely is scenario 2, car 2 hit car 1 and then car 3 piles on top of those.
If there are no witnesses the insurance companies will have to go with available information and also the fact that scenario two is highly unlikely.
Anyway, if it is one word against another, OP has to make sure he shouts louder. That way he has a chance. I know how people in customer service centers operate, they will work based on their own assumptions and to get through to them the OP will have to make a racket.
This is because they will deal with a large number of cases and to them it's just numbers and figures. But if someone hounds them and kicks up a (polite) stink, they ill take more interest in a case.

OP, get onto them, don't let it go, deal only with one person (this is vital!), be firm but not aggressive, be polite and keep pressing your point. Make sure that person understands the scenario and has all the relevant facts. Offer to supply more information. That way you stand a chance. Otherwise you are just case #374764/X1-B and will be dealt with accordingly.

If anyone else has any relevant information on how to deal with this scenario other than "give up now, all hope is lost", come forward.

djimi

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

There will also be plausibility. How likely is scenario 1, car 3 hits car 2 and shunts it into car 1 and how likely is scenario 2, car 2 hit car 1 and then car 3 piles on top of those.
If there are no witnesses the insurance companies will have to go with available information and also the fact that scenario two is highly unlikely.

I think this will be a big factor tbh. The chances of things playing out like car 3 is claiming in the scenario as described by the OP are very unlikely (ie two separate incidents occurring between the three cars). The odds that car 3 pushed car 2 into car 1 are far more likely, and any insurance company worth their salt will know this full well. I would say the onus of proof is very firmly with car 3 right now to back up their story.

kaiserrussel

djimi wrote: »

I think this will be a big factor tbh. The chances of things playing out like car 3 is claiming in the scenario as described by the OP are very unlikely (ie two separate incidents occurring between the three cars). The odds that car 3 pushed car 2 into car 1 are far more likely, and any insurance company worth their salt will know this full well. I would say the onus of proof is very firmly with car 3 right now to back up their story.

Thanks guys for your comments, some have been really helpful. I have called back my insurance company and they are saying that my car is an "economical" write off due to the combined damage to the front and back. if it was only a rear collision they would repair it. it seems that boot etc are driving the price up.

any ideas how I can ascertain the value they will offer me?

kaiserrussel

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So there you go OP, I hope Spook has comprehensively answered your question.
If you want some real advise, I'd say lean on your insurance every day, don't let this go. This was not your fault and do not let them do you for it. You could roll over and play dead (in which case you will get steamrollered) or you could fight this. Do not underestimate the power of badgering people on the phone every day.

If in doubt seek legal advise. It is 100% the fault of the car that rear ended you. I was in a similar situation. Traffic at a traffic light had started to move, we all moved off and then stopped again unexpectedly. Driver behind me was dreaming and hit me and also shunted me into the car ahead of me.

Thanks for this comment dr.fuzzenstein. essentially your right there is no comprehensive proof I am right I guess, but i honestly wouldn't be asking here if I was wrong. as all i am paying for then is to fix car 1. Just to get this story straight it happened exactly as I laid out, car 3 hit car 2 and shunted (I used the word push) car 2 into 1. its a s simple as that. I will be following up with the insurance company regularly on this and I will seek legal advice also. essentially car 3 is lying here

kaiserrussel

So guys i am being told still that car 3 is saying I hit car 1 first and they are not backing down!

Am I after hitting a wall? I have asked for an engineer to come to look at car etc. from other insurance company.

This is so Frustrating

djimi

Did your insurance company not get an assessor to take a look at the damage to the cars?

kaiserrussel

djimi wrote: »

Did your insurance company not get an assessor to take a look at the damage to the cars?

Noone came to look at my car, only sent on pics to them

dodzy

kaiserrussel wrote: »

So guys i am being told still that car 3 is saying I hit car 1 first and they are not backing down!

Am I after hitting a wall? I have asked for an engineer to come to look at car etc. from other insurance company.

This is so Frustrating

Stand fast soldier. Whats the poxy chance of somebody stupid enough to rear-end you (unforced), but still have time to notice that you hit the car in front of you ?

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

dodzy wrote: »

Stand fast soldier. Whats the poxy chance of somebody stupid enough to rear-end you (unforced), but still have time to notice that you hit the car in front of you ?

Agree with the above

Do not stand down on this. Waste their time .. for all you know they could be trying to scam ! (No idea how)

kaiserrussel

dodzy wrote: »

Stand fast soldier. Whats the poxy chance of somebody stupid enough to rear-end you (unforced), but still have time to notice that you hit the car in front of you ?

completely agree dodzy, should I call his insurance company handler?

dodzy

kaiserrussel wrote: »

completely agree dodzy, should I call his insurance company handler?

Have you spoken with your insurer yet ? I'd start there if you have not already. Get them to advise next step. Ultimately, the insurers will decide. Hope it works out for ya.

kaiserrussel

dodzy wrote: »

Have you spoken with your insurer yet ? I'd start there if you have not already. Get them to advise next step. Ultimately, the insurers will decide. Hope it works out for ya.

yes its my insurance company that are saying that car 3/car 3 insurance company is blaming me for hitting car 1

dr.fuzzenstein

kaiserrussel wrote: »

yes its my insurance company that are saying that car 3/car 3 insurance company is blaming me for hitting car 1

What a scumbag the other driver is.
Definitely start bending ears at your insurance company.
Arseholes like car 3 should be jailed and fined for fraud.

Sam Kade

ants09 wrote: »

This happened me years ago, in a 3 car collision, i was the first car.

The Garda that came to the scene asked me, how many bumps did i feel

if i felt one bump it meant car 3 hit car 2 which push car 2 into me

if i felt two bumps it meant car 2 hit me first then car 3 hit car 2

Since i felt only 1 bump it meant car 3 push car 2 into me and the Garda said
i would claim off car 2 insurance and car 2 insurance would claim off car 3 because he was at fault.

That's exactly how it works.