Personal injury claim against my insurance, no options?

Movementarian

Hi, just wondered if anyone had come across or knows of a similar situation since I have never had to deal with this kind of stuff before.

Was in a very minor collision with another car, only minor damage and more to my car than the other party. We both exchanged insurance details, took pictures of damage etc. Other party wanted to contact the guards so we spoke to them on the phone and they confirmed no need to attend the scene as there were no injuries and we had both exchanged details.

Again to stress, we both confirmed to the guards that nobody was injured and minor damage only to cars.

However after contacting my insurance company it turns out that I will likely be the liable party for the car damage which I can accept. But I have also found out that the other party is now also suddenly claiming a neck injury. I stressed to the insurer that they had confirmed multiple times everything was fine to me and the guards but that doesn't seem to matter.

Is this just par for the course now? Are there options here or is it entirely up to the insurance company?

Eggs For Dinner

Movementarian wrote: »

Hi, just wondered if anyone had come across or knows of a similar situation since I have never had to deal with this kind of stuff before.

Was in a very minor collision with another car, only minor damage and more to my car than the other party. We both exchanged insurance details, took pictures of damage etc. Other party wanted to contact the guards so we spoke to them on the phone and they confirmed no need to attend the scene as there were no injuries and we had both exchanged details.

Again to stress, we both confirmed to the guards that nobody was injured and minor damage only to cars.

However after contacting my insurance company it turns out that I will likely be the liable party for the car damage which I can accept. But I have also found out that the other party is now also suddenly claiming a neck injury. I stressed to the insurer that they had confirmed multiple times everything was fine to me and the guards but that doesn't seem to matter.

Is this just par for the course now? Are there options here or is it entirely up to the insurance company?

If you accept that you were liable for the accident, it's down to medical evidence now. If the claimant can prove their injury, all your insurers can do is try and minimise the payout. What was said at the scene is of no legal effect. Your insurers retain full control of the process

Triangle

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

If you accept that you were liable for the accident, it's down to medical evidence now. If the claimant can prove their injury, all your insurers can do is try and minimise the payout. What was said at the scene is of no legal effect. Your insurers retain full control of the process

Soft tissue injuries can't be proved. There's nothing but taking the persons word for it unfortunately - hence the claim culture.

hullaballoo

Soft tissues can be proven and are proven by medical evidence.

The difficulty is that they can't be disproven by medical evidence more often than not.

The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

05eaftqbrs9jlh

A similar thing happened to me, the guy was driving a replacement van he'd got while his was in the garage. The garage didn't charge for the damage (because I just tipped the tow bar, so there was virtually none). I still got done for €40k 'injury'. He might as well have pole vaulted away from the scene, there couldn't have been a thing wrong with him, seeing as I'd basically rolled into him when he jammed on the brakes for no reason.

I had step back insurance so kept most of my no claims but the premium went up the following year. I'd like to think the €40k helped him do something he loved in life but he seemed like a joyless pr!ck so I doubt it.

Oh, and I only found out incidentally when I rang the insurance company about something else. I had no recourse and couldn't object to the claim.

Peregrinus

Movementarian wrote: »

. . . . Again to stress, we both confirmed to the guards that nobody was injured and minor damage only to cars.

However after contacting my insurance company it turns out that I will likely be the liable party for the car damage which I can accept. But I have also found out that the other party is now also suddenly claiming a neck injury. I stressed to the insurer that they had confirmed multiple times everything was fine to me and the guards but that doesn't seem to matter.

Is this just par for the course now? Are there options here or is it entirely up to the insurance company?

Waylon Brief Idiot wrote: »

. . . He might as well have pole vaulted away from the scene, there couldn't have been a thing wrong with him, seeing as I'd basically rolled into him when he jammed on the brakes for no reason.

There's nothing surprising or suspicious about any of this; it's typical for soft tissue injuries that it takes some time for symptoms to manifest. Somebody complaining of pain or immobility at the scene of the accident but then claiming only in respect a soft tissue injury would be far more likely to arouse suspicion.

Eggs For Dinner

Waylon Brief Idiot wrote: »

Oh, and I only found out incidentally when I rang the insurance company about something else. I had no recourse and couldn't object to the claim.

You rear ended the other driver. What way would you have objected to the claim? Are you more medically qualified that the consultants appointed by both sides? Are you more familiar with precedent for such injuries than your insurer's legal team?

I totally get your frustration, I see it every day. However, letting policyholders decide what gets paid and what doesnt will only result in fuelling the legal system.

Littlehorny

As a fella who works in a bodyshop once told me "in the trade these are known as pub claims".

Movementarian

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

You rear ended the other driver. What way would you have objected to the claim? Are you more medically qualified that the consultants appointed by both sides? Are you more familiar with precedent for such injuries than your insurer's legal team?

I totally get your frustration, I see it every day. However, letting policyholders decide what gets paid and what doesnt will only result in fuelling the legal system.

I know what you mean. In my particular case it wasnt a front or rear collision but a very light scrape on the side. Impact didn't even move either car.

I guess my frustration is arising from the fact that claiming an injury from this incident seems so petty and vindictive. Minor damage will all be sorted so theres no need for it. And apparently insurance companies are more likely to just try settle without challenging.

Myself and my partner had an incident when sitting in traffic years ago and a car drove into the back of us. Proper shunt from behind but zero damage to our car as the other was an older model BMW. Front of his bonnet was crumpled and dented. Other party was very apologetic and all parties were ok. Swapped details, got my car checked and zero damage so never had to claim or anything. Also never even entered our heads to try this injury claim bs. Its intensely frustrating that others can and do try this stuff.

Eggs For Dinner

Movementarian wrote: »

I guess my frustration is arising from the fact that claiming an injury from this incident seems so petty and vindictive. Minor damage will all be sorted so theres no need for it. And apparently insurance companies are more likely to just try settle without challenging.

.

They do challenge, but there is a point when it becomes economical to continue the fight

If the cause of the accident is not in dispute and an injury (for example) is valued at 50k, do you try and settle for 40k or run the risk of going to court and having an award against you for 75k plus 25k legal costs?

While it seems a pragmatic solution, it still feeds the system where claimants can chance their luck. Bottom line is the risk/reward scenario is worth a punt

Victor

Movementarian wrote: »

But I have also found out that the other party is now also suddenly claiming a neck injury. I stressed to the insurer that they had confirmed multiple times everything was fine to me and the guards but that doesn't seem to matter.

Many injuries can take 24-48 hours to manifest themselves. I was in a car crash and went to A&E and then my GP the next day and while initially feeling a little dizzy and then the next day I was feeling very wary (afraid to cross the street), I was visually fine. By the time I went back to the GP 3 days later I was covered in bruises.

cj maxx

Victor wrote: »

Many injuries can take 24-48 hours to manifest themselves. I was in a car crash and went to A&E and then my GP the next day and while initially feeling a little dizzy and then the next day I was feeling very wary (afraid to cross the street), I was visually fine. By the time I went back to the GP 3 days later I was covered in bruises.

True. Many injuries take time to manifest. I was involved in a pretty minor RTA but 2 days later ,and since, I been in agony .
Neck pain and vertigo since .
No bruises but the pain is very real.i was told by my wife that when I called her straight after the crash I "was high". It must have been an adenaline rush(my1st crash)