Car Incident advice needed

[Diego Napier]

Also whenever insurers get involved expect all premiums to go up considerably

Not true as long as she's correctly recorded the details of the driver who hit the rear of her car.

 

[surlyseagull]

Regardless if you make a claim off a third party and is not your fault your insurance company will mark it as a claim ,which may not put your premiums up with that company but if you shop around next time it will be given as a no fault claim which may or may not have a bearing on your premiums ,as you are in effect claiming of your insurance company until such times as the third parties insurance coughs up.

 

[dragonred]

pretty straight forward this - the car that hit the middle one (your friends) which was then shunted into a car in front ultimately takes the fault for everything. They need to notify their insurers urgently who will then ultimately look to claim off the car behind's insurers and also get them to sort out the car in front too. Best advice is never do 'private deals' for repairs and keep your insurers in the dark. There is a 50%+ chance the person will then go on to make a personal injury claim and if you haven't told your insurers about the repairs, or fact you've paid for them, they'll pay out for the whiplash compensation claim but then come after you personally for that payout on basis the failure to disclose immediately voids the insurance policy for breach of it. As a whiplash case generally adds up to not less than £2,500 for injuries and fees, could get seriously expensive not reporting. Hope that helps.

 

[martin tyler]

As has been said speak to her insurance company.
I was involved in something similar ages ago. The insurance companies will sort it out and i expect they will agree that the car that caused the accident will be responsible for the incident and therefore she will have nothing to worry about.

 

[StonehamPark]

Hey all,

So someone I know was driving to work and whilst stationary was hit from behind. As a result of the impact she hit the car in front of her causing the cars to scratch and trade paint essentially.

At the time, the driver in front of her said it was fine and that all was needed was a simple T-cut.

Nothing was said until within the last hour the person I know received a vile voicemail from the woman demanding money off her immediately.

So, people of NSC, what is the situation here? Clearly it was not my friend's fault in this incident but the other woman seems to be furious all of a sudden despite leaving on good terms this morning and continued their normal everyday regimes...

Does my friend need to claim on her insurance? Does my friend need to pay this woman for a new paint job on her car?

Thanks in advance.

Did your friend get the details of the car at the back of the shunt?
Did your friend take any pictures of the incident and/or cars involved at the time?
If so, inform your Insurers and pass on the details.

DO NOT give any cash to the lady/car in front as by doing so, you're (in a sense) accepting liability.

If the lady in front calls again, just tell her you've notified your Insurers and they will deal with it, this should stop any future calls from.

The car at the back is entirely at fault, hopefully you have the details.

I work in Liability & Claims Fraud so hopefully the above advice helps.

 

[AlastairWatts]

The bird in the front vehicle has probably been told by someone to try and mug your friend off, its the kind of shitty society we live in unfortunately

Exactly right: the same thing happened to me when my old Jaguar inched forward and just touched another car as I parked it at Asda. It wasn't funny though. I gave the driver my details and told her that she was talking nonsense which possibly didn't hep, When I got back to the car someone accused me of being drunk and tried to take they keys off me. On the way home the police pulled me over and breathalysed me with negative results. Two days later I got a call from her. Quite forcibly, I thought, I suggested that she go and boil her head. I've not heard another word.

Personally, I wouldn't do anything at all except make a careful note of exactly what did happen. The insurance company won't complain if you don't tell them and even if they do you can simply say that you'd thought the whole thing closed. She wants to cause trouble then she'll probably look for an easier 'mark' if you just ignore her.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

She may have been partly at fault if she should'vr had her handbrake on? It depends on the situation but it's amazing how few people bother with them these days.

This. Technically (and while it assumes everyone is perfect) I think the middle car is responsible for the car it hit as the driver should have left enough space between her and the car in front to prevent this situation arising. I'm not entirely sure that the car at the back is completely to blame - they may only be responsible for the car immediately in front of them. Plus, this way, it allows more insurance companies to be involved, and more money to be made by them (that's the cynical view, I guess).

But this situation is further complicated by the driver of said car in front saying everything is fine. Dodgy ground...

 

[StonehamPark]

This. Technically (and while it assumes everyone is perfect) I think the middle car is responsible for the car it hit as the driver should have left enough space between her and the car in front to prevent this situation arising. I'm not entirely sure that the car at the back is completely to blame - they may only be responsible for the car immediately in front of them. Plus, this way, it allows more insurance companies to be involved, and more money to be made by them (that's the cynical view, I guess).

But this situation is further complicated by the driver of said car in front saying everything is fine. Dodgy ground...

Sorry, but that's all wrong.

You need to look at negligence.
The only vehicle/party negligent is the third vehicle.
All claims would be directed to the third vehicles insurers.

It's really not dodgy ground. I see this every single day with the very same outcome each time.

Really don't mean to sound snarky, just trying to offer accurate/professional advice is all.

 

[Notters]

Sorry, but that's all wrong.

You need to look at negligence.
The only vehicle/party negligent is the third vehicle.
All claims would be directed to the third vehicles insurers.

It's really not dodgy ground. I see this every single day with the very same outcome each time.

Really don't mean to sound snarky, just trying to offer accurate/professional advice is all.

If you're stopped at a red light or waiting to turn right at a junction and you're only using your foot brake rather than your handbrake, then get shunted, doesn't that make you negligent too?

 

[Greyrun]

Involved in similar incident involving 4 cars,last car was guilty party and therefore all claims.

 

[dragonred]

If you're stopped at a red light or waiting to turn right at a junction and you're only using your foot brake rather than your handbrake, then get shunted, doesn't that make you negligent too?

there's absolutely no negligence in those situations - it is pretty much always (well 99.99%) the car behind responsible. I can think of 1 case in nearly 20 years where one in front was held at fault and that was an extreme case of reversing backwards! It all comes down to fact person behind has to be able to stop and avoid hitting car in front so what the car in front does makes no difference.

 

[StonehamPark]

If you're stopped at a red light or waiting to turn right at a junction and you're only using your foot brake rather than your handbrake, then get shunted, doesn't that make you negligent too?

You are correct as in the Highway code it states the handbrake should be used (note, not MUST be used) if you are to remain stationary for some time.
However, the degree of negligence by the vehicle behind (or in the OP's case, the third vehicle) who shunted you is far greater and they will be deemed entirely at fault.

 

[fat old seagull]

This. Technically (and while it assumes everyone is perfect) I think the middle car is responsible for the car it hit as the driver should have left enough space between her and the car in front to prevent this situation arising. I'm not entirely sure that the car at the back is completely to blame - they may only be responsible for the car immediately in front of them. Plus, this way, it allows more insurance companies to be involved, and more money to be made by them (that's the cynical view, I guess).
But this situation is further complicated by the driver of said car in front saying everything is fine. Dodgy ground...

Almost none of that is accurate. And as we have no info on why the accident happened its all hearsay. This sort of accident is usually caused by sudden braking. If the first car did so, the second stopped (correctly) in time to prevent a shunt, but had no time to apply handbrake? The third car clearly was at fault for both contacts.

 

[father_and_son]

Hey all,

So someone I know was driving to work and whilst stationary was hit from behind. As a result of the impact she hit the car in front of her causing the cars to scratch and trade paint essentially.

At the time, the driver in front of her said it was fine and that all was needed was a simple T-cut.

Nothing was said until within the last hour the person I know received a vile voicemail from the woman demanding money off her immediately.

So, people of NSC, what is the situation here? Clearly it was not my friend's fault in this incident but the other woman seems to be furious all of a sudden despite leaving on good terms this morning and continued their normal everyday regimes...

Does my friend need to claim on her insurance? Does my friend need to pay this woman for a new paint job on her car?

Thanks in advance.

As an insurance man...

The party at fault is the person who hit your friend. Her insurance company will be responsible for settling everyone's bills.
(The small exception to this would be if your friend had shown some "contributory negligence"... by stopping in a dangerous place, for no good reason, with no lights on or something equally dangerous - I shall assume this isn't the case).


Your friend needs to contact their insurer immediately.
Firstly apologise for not contacting them earlier (they are obliged under the contract to notify all incidents whether a claim is made or not).
Let them instruct solicitors and deal with the woman in the front vehicle.
Advise the insurers that she has become abusive and is, effectively, trying to blackmail your friend. Advise she has evidence. Let them deal with this too. It gives them leverage in discussions with her insurer because that insurer would have to stump up for her legal costs from a "blackmail" prosecution!
Do not discuss *ANYTHING* directly with the woman.

Best case... the fault of the person at the rear is undisputed, their insurer pays all the bills directly, your insurer does nothing.

A worse case scenario is your friend's insurer will pay out and recover their costs from the other insurance company. For a period of time until they have they money back, the claim will be treated as a fault claim. This will effect any renewal which occurs in the meantime. Once they have their money back (including refunding any excess your friend had to pay out), they will switch the claim to non-fault (and correct the renewal paid if any). This *may* have an impact on future insurance renewals depending on whether your friend has had other incidents.
Statistically speaking... someone with 1 non-fault accident is unlucky and very very few insurers will use this in pricing.
Someone with 2 or more fault OR non-faults in a short period of time (typically ~3yrs) is more likely to have a fault claim and so their price WILL increase.

The worst case is their insurer pays the bills and can't recover costs because liability remains disputed and cannot be agreed upon (no witnesses, person at rear says your friend was reversing, impossible for them to avoid an accident, etc etc). Your friend is left with a partial fault claim (which is really the same as a fault claim) which may not impact their no claims (if they have protected it), but will cause a load to be applied at renewal (people who have fault accidents are statistically more likely to have more fault accidents).


If you friend chooses to just pay off the woman and not get insurers involved then there is a massive possible risk. If the woman then comes back and says she has whiplash, you friend's insurer is within their rights to refuse to settle the claim (they probably won't but they could) because your friend breached the contract by not notifying them of the claim (and/or giving full disclosure of the details). It could just go away, but frankly all parties would be a little silly just to leave it like this. Even low speed impacts can cause sub-structure damage which could have catastrophic consequences in a future, more serious accident. The insurers are obliged to check for and deal with this, a back-street garage working on a cash job may not. These are extremely rare but does she want to take the risk?

 

[drew]

This. Technically (and while it assumes everyone is perfect) I think the middle car is responsible for the car it hit as the driver should have left enough space between her and the car in front to prevent this situation arising. I'm not entirely sure that the car at the back is completely to blame - they may only be responsible for the car immediately in front of them. Plus, this way, it allows more insurance companies to be involved, and more money to be made by them (that's the cynical view, I guess).

But this situation is further complicated by the driver of said car in front saying everything is fine. Dodgy ground...

From this I can deduce that you have never worked in insurance!

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I stand corrected - apologies for the misinterpretation of the law. I could've sworn I'd heard of cases where people were liable because they hadn't left enough room in front of them. What's the case for someone rolling back into the front of your car on a hill - who is liable then? I thought that the person behind was ALWAYS to blame (Maybe that's where my thinking came from)?

Sorry, but that's all wrong.

You need to look at negligence.
The only vehicle/party negligent is the third vehicle.
All claims would be directed to the third vehicles insurers.

It's really not dodgy ground. I see this every single day with the very same outcome each time.

Really don't mean to sound snarky, just trying to offer accurate/professional advice is all.

No, don't worry about it - I appreciate the clarification.

Almost none of that is accurate. And as we have no info on why the accident happened its all hearsay. This sort of accident is usually caused by sudden braking. If the first car did so, the second stopped (correctly) in time to prevent a shunt, but had no time to apply handbrake? The third car clearly was at fault for both contacts.

Fair enough. I wasn't saying it WAS the law, just what I was led to believe.

From this I can deduce that you have never worked in insurance!

Correct.

 

[Gwylan]

As an insurance man...

A worse case scenario is your friend's insurer will pay out and recover their costs from the other insurance company. For a period of time until they have they money back, the claim will be treated as a fault claim. This will effect any renewal which occurs in the meantime. Once they have their money back (including refunding any excess your friend had to pay out), they will switch the claim to non-fault (and correct the renewal paid if any). This *may* have an impact on future insurance renewals depending on whether your friend has had other incidents.

Surely the worst case is that the driver of the last car (who hit the OP's friend) is uninsured? In that case, isn't the OP's friend in the worst of all worlds? Would she then be liable for the car in front?

 

[StonehamPark]

What's the case for someone rolling back into the front of your car on a hill - who is liable then? I thought that the person behind was ALWAYS to blame (Maybe that's where my thinking came from)?

Difficult scenario.
Without witnesses, the insurers would likely split liability 50/50 depending on version of events/interview etc.

It's down to proof.
Car at the back (in your scenario), Insurer: "prove to me that the vehicle in front rolled back", Policy Holder: "I can't, he just rolled backwards into me".

If the Third Party (roller) admits liability, easy case.
If the Third Party denies and states PH hit him in the back, difficult. Likely split liability.

Typically, the person at the back is usually at fault as he's not allowing a safe braking distance but that's only in the simpler cases.

 

[maltaseagull]

I imagine the woman who hit your friends car could be responsible for all the repair bills. Best advise the insurance company and hope your friend has got the correct and genuine insurance and address details plus reg no of the car that hit her. The insurance companies will sort it. I'd advise your friend to tell the person she hit that it's being dealt with by the insurance company. I wouldn't'agree to pay or evenhave any further contact with the woman she hit. Leave it to the insurance company.

If your friend hasn't got the details of the person who hit her, it's going to be a problem.

I have a feeling that if your car is hit from behind and as a result you then hit the car in front, it may be argued that you didn't leave a large enough gap. (Tyres on tarmac as my instructor used to say)

 

[WATFORD zero]

Difficult scenario.
Without witnesses, the insurers would likely split liability 50/50 depending on version of events/interview etc.

It's down to proof.
Car at the back (in your scenario), Insurer: "prove to me that the vehicle in front rolled back", Policy Holder: "I can't, he just rolled backwards into me".

If the Third Party (roller) admits liability, easy case.
If the Third Party denies and states PH hit him in the back, difficult. Likely split liability.

Typically, the person at the back is usually at fault as he's not allowing a safe braking distance but that's only in the simpler cases.

Everyone's premiums go up and both Insurance companies benefit from their inability to make a decision. Someone more cynical than myself may think that there is no interest from the insurance companies in apportioning blame