Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

3 car collision - Question

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #34
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #36
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    kaiserrussel
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭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?


  • Options
    #41
    kaiserrussel
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    kaiserrussel
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #43
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,238 ✭✭✭✭djimi


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


  • Options
    #44
    kaiserrussel
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #45
    dodzy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,934 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • Options
    #46
    Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime
    Registered Users Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭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)


  • Options
    #47
    kaiserrussel
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭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?


  • Options
    #48
    dodzy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,934 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    kaiserrussel
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #50
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    dodzy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,934 ✭✭✭dodzy


    kaiserrussel wrote: »
    yes its my insurance company that are saying that car 3/car 3 insurance company is blaming me for hitting car 1
    again, I'd be arguing on the basis of probability to my insurance company and insisting that they don't bend over here. How many times have they seen this actually happen, when a claim is awarded to only one of the two cars damaged. I'd imaging those cases are like hens teeth, as opposed to a far more common occurecne of the rear car causing, and being responsible for, the shunt.


  • Options
    #53
    kaiserrussel
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭kaiserrussel


    good news guys, I was proved to be in the right, thank god


  • Options
    #54
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    kaiserrussel wrote: »
    good news guys, I was proved to be in the right, thank god


    Good to hear


  • Options
    #55
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    Great stuff. Delighted for you. Have followed this thread. Hope car 3 has to pay for the lot:(


  • Options
    #56
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Kristopherus wrote: »
    Great stuff. Delighted for you. Have followed this thread. Hope car 3 has to pay for the lot:(

    Now comes the bit where car three will piss and moan about it, appealing and basically blaming everyone but himself and will probably go to the grave telling everyone who will listen that he was hard done by and victimized.


  • Options
    #57
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,739 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    kaiserrussel wrote: »
    good news guys, I was proved to be in the right, thank god

    Well done OP.. but unfortunately it's probably not over yet - now comes the "fun" part - agreeing a price for your car.

    They'll likely offer you the market/book value which will NOT be the price you see for similar cars on DoneDeal/Carzone and the likes.. it'll usually be a lot less.

    If so, you now need to get examples of such cars from the sites above that are as close to your own (year, mileage, spec) as possible and fight them on the price.

    Remember .. you are the innocent party here and if not for the actions of the other car would not be needing to change your car at all. It is therefore their job to get you back in the position you were in before the accident and that does NOT include being out of pocket.

    Went through this before a decade ago and while the other party accepted liability straight away, I had to shout and escalate a bit with their insurer to get my money back - both in terms of amount and quickly - as they will try to settle for as little as possible and won't be in any particular rush. My own insurer wanted nothing to do with it once they weren't being asked to stump up.

    Good luck!


  • Options
    #58
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    kaiserrussel wrote: »
    good news guys, I was proved to be in the right, thank god

    How did you manage to prove you were right in the end?


  • Options
    #59
    To Elland Back
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭To Elland Back


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    They'll likely offer you the market/book value which will NOT be the price you see for similar cars on DoneDeal/Carzone and the likes.. it'll usually be a lot less.

    In fairness, don't sellers quote a price on those websites knowing they will be happy to accept a price lower than that, making the acceptance level the actual market value.

    Not disagreeing with your point, I would just get prices from dealers based on a straight cash offer


  • Options
    #60
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,739 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    To Elland Back wrote: »
    In fairness, don't sellers quote a price on those websites knowing they will be happy to accept a price lower than that, making the acceptance level the actual market value.

    Not disagreeing with your point, I would just get prices from dealers based on a straight cash offer

    Yea, what I mean is he will need the actual cost of replacement - not the book/trade value he'll likely get offered.

    He just keeps reminding them that were it not for the actions of that third car/driver (also called: their client!), he wouldn't be in this mess - plus the hassle of having no car in the meantime etc.
    It'll take some persistence and escalation but it does work - in my case I got the full cost of buying another one 3 weeks after the incident.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    galwaytt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,761 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    Well done OP.. but unfortunately it's probably not over yet - now comes the "fun" part - agreeing a price for your car.

    They'll likely offer you the market/book value which will NOT be the price you see for similar cars on DoneDeal/Carzone and the likes.. it'll usually be a lot less.

    If so, you now need to get examples of such cars from the sites above that are as close to your own (year, mileage, spec) as possible and fight them on the price.

    Remember .. you are the innocent party here and if not for the actions of the other car would not be needing to change your car at all. It is therefore their job to get you back in the position you were in before the accident and that does NOT include being out of pocket.

    Went through this before a decade ago and while the other party accepted liability straight away, I had to shout and escalate a bit with their insurer to get my money back - both in terms of amount and quickly - as they will try to settle for as little as possible and won't be in any particular rush. My own insurer wanted nothing to do with it once they weren't being asked to stump up.

    Good luck!

    I've just spent 9 weeks sorting this bit out, you're right ' this is where the row starts. ...

    Market value is nonsense: replacement value is where it's at.

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



Advertisement