Civil actions following minor road traffic collisions

Lenar3556

Hi,
I was reading with interest the thread on the two car collision near the school and was wondering about the following which happened a few years ago.

A friend of mine was involved in a realitively minor material damage collision at a roundabout. The evidence pointed quite firmly to the other party being at fault but he (the other party) disputed this unequivocally.

My friend simply referred the matter to his insurer and engaged with a solicitor which was provided as a benefit of his motor insurance policy. He explained his position, why he didn’t believe he was at fault etc.

A few weeks later, he was advised that the other party had initiated a civil action against him and he would be summonsed to the district court.

He received the summons and attended. The judge listened to the cases of both parties and reviewed some photos. He ruled against the plaintiff and in favour of a (rather considerable) counter claim devised by my friends solicitor.

My friend received the money (I think from the other parties insurance company) got his car fixed and that was the end of it.

Is this an unusual occurrence?
Is such a course open to any individual finding themselves in such a circumstance? Perhaps if they were unhappy that their insurer was planning to settle the matter and affect their no claims bonus?

nuac

Mod
Yes, that often happens.
Insurers are entitled to defend or compromise such actions as they see fit
Is there any legal issue arising you wish to discuss?

Lenar3556

But the insurance company would need to pay the amount awarded by the court or else appeal to a higher court? Or could they refuse to pay the full amount?

In this case the plaintiff took a rather foolish case that was doomed to fail and likely cost his insurance company more than if they were to settle directly with the other party.

Other than his legal costs did the plaintiff incur any real risk with this action? As I recall he didn’t have comprehensive insurance to cover the damage to his own car and that was his motivation in the first instance.

Thanks for the reply!

coylemj

Lenar3556 wrote: »

My friend received the money (I think from the other parties insurance company) got his car fixed and that was the end of it.

Who paid his costs? The other guy's insurance company would have had access to all of the evidence and you'd expect that they would have offered to settle rather than let it go to court, lose and have to pay costs for both sides. Which is what happens in a civil case.

That other guy may have been a pig-headed fool and funded the legal case himself because he couldn't admit to being in the wrong. An accident at a roundabout is usually pretty clear cut so the insurance companies will typically decide between themselves who was at fault and pay accordingly. The fact that there was photos makes this even more likely.

Ask your friend who paid his legal fees - the plaintiff or his (the plaintiff's) insurance company.

Lenar3556

Well his solicitor was provided by (and paid for by) his insurance company. ‘Free legal advice’ was a benefit of his policy and the appearance in court seemed to follow on from the initial legal advice consultation- I gather he didn’t put his hand in his pocket at all.

So if the plaintiffs insurance company wanted to settle and he didn’t (for whatever reason) can he still proceed with the action against the other party?

If my friend had been awarded an amount which the plaintiffs insurance company felt was too high are they obliged to stand by their policyholder and pay it?

Could his insurance company subsequently appeal the outcome to a higher court even though they were not a party to the original proceedings?

coylemj

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Well his solicitor was provided by (and paid for by) his insurance company. ‘Free legal advice’ was a benefit of his policy and the appearance in court seemed to follow on from the initial legal advice consultation- I gather he didn’t put his hand in his pocket at all.

That's not what I was asking. You probably don't know the answer but what I was asking was - who ultimately picked up the bill for your friend's solicitor?

Your friend won the case and would have been awarded costs which in theory means the other guy's insurance company had to pay the legal bills. But I suspect this was a solo run by the other guy and it's likely that his insurance company were holding a cash deposit to buffer them in case things went wrong. Which is precisely what happened. I suspect that he harraunged his insurance comnpany to let him take the case and they did so only after he effectively indemnified them (with cash) from any fallout. If there had been any element of personal injury, he would not have been allowed to do so, they would have settled. In a claim with only crash repairs to deal with, the principal risk in going to court is that you have to pay the other guy's legal bills if you lose.

A minor accident at a roundabout involving no personal injury and with photos taken in the immediate aftermath just does not end up in court.

Eggs For Dinner

It sounds as if the other party took it upon themselves to take an action against your friend. The other party's insurers, at the same time, were defending the claim made by your friend.

Given that the private action was to be heard in court, the other party's insurers were probably waiting to see what the outcome of this was to settle the claim your friend made against them

Bottom line is that liability was settled against the 3rd party and his insurers would bear the cost of this, along with the associated legal fees. However, his insurers would not reimburse him for the private action he took. That would be a solo run

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Bottom line is that liability was settled against the 3rd party and his insurers would bear the cost of this, along with the associated legal fees. However, his insurers would not reimburse him for the private action he took. That would be a solo run

Why would his insurance pay any legal costs, given that they were probably prepared to settle before it went to court?

My take on it is that the other guy was probably left with the legal bill for both sides since the case would never have seen the inside of a court if not for his stubbornness.

His insurance could have settled and ended the case there and then, he must have indemnified them for their legal costs or they would never have let him off on a solo run. I can't see any way that the court case was initiated by either of the insurance companies, the accident was well below the threshold of complexity or value for going to a judge to figure it out.

Eggs For Dinner

coylemj wrote:

Why would his insurance pay any legal costs, given that they were probably prepared to settle before it went to court?

When an insurer settles before court there are already legal fees incurred by both sides which the liable party's insurer pays.

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

When an insurer settles before court there are already legal fees incurred by both sides which the liable party's insurer pays.

What legal fees? This is a case about a minor traffic accident that would have been discussed between the claims people from the two insurance companies and settled with no recourse to lawyers. Or would have been if one of the parties hadn't refused to concede blame and a civil claim ensued.

I can't see how the plaintiff's insurance company allowed him to (1) refuse to accept the evidence that showed he was in the wrong (2) go ahead with a civil claim which was doomed to fail and then (3) they picked up his legal bills when he lost.

Eggs For Dinner

coylemj wrote:

What legal fees? This is a case about a minor traffic accident that would have been discussed between the claims people from the two insurance companies and settled with no recourse to lawyers. Or would have been if one of the parties hadn't refused to concede blame and a civil claim ensued.

The OP was represented by a solicitor, his fees had to be paid. The fact that the 3rd party took a civil action is a sidebar to the defence his insurers had to take in relation to the OP's claim and they may have had to appoint their own counsel to do it, with the loser paying the bills

Eggs For Dinner

coylemj wrote:

My take on it is that the other guy was probably left with the legal bill for both sides since the case would never have seen the inside of a court if not for his stubbornness.

There are 2 seperate actions here. One is the normal interaction between 2 parties when an accident occurs, when the insurers decide on liability (which is their right as per policy conditions). The claim being paid by the losing side

At the same time, the 3rd party takes a private action against the OP, which has nothing to do with his insurer and they won't fund that. That's my reading on it from the information given

Lenar3556

Thanks for the responses guys.

So the plaintiff would have needed the permission of his insurers to take the action? And if he didn’t have this, they could disregard any settlement awarded by the court? - this being a matter for the plaintiff to fund himself?

Do the road traffic acts place any imposition on an insurance company to force them to pay an award in such a circumstance? (I.e where their client was found by the courts to be at fault)

If the amounts involved were large, and the plaintiff was unable to fund them himself, surely the injured party would then have a strong case against the plaintiffs insurer given he had a court finding in his favour - and they would have to pay?

I suspect the legal costs involved in this instance would have been small. Indeed, the plaintiffs solicitor seemed to know very little of the particulars when he arrived on the day. When he became aware of some of the facts he was quite animated with his client at the back of the courthouse, presumably advising he should not proceed any further!