Car accident help 50/50

[Daddynoob]

My son had a crash in his car shortly after passing his test
It was at about 10 mph head on as he was coming home in the housing estate
There was 2 parked cars on the right hand side of the road on a bend
As he passed the first car another car from the opposite direction hit him head on
The insurance is saying if it goes to court the judge will rule 50/50
Also the male driver was reluctant to give his name and ended up giving the female passengers name who was a nurse and it was a lease car
And he shouldn’t have been driving it
We told the insurance this but fell on deaf ears
We have a neighbour who heard the crash but did not see it
He ran over to see if everyone was ok and the male was driving the car
Where does he stand with this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JonRA]

I hope your son and the others are unhurt.

It sounds as though there are two separate issues here. Who's fault was the collision; and was the other driver insured.

If the other driver wasn't insured, there is a fund that pays out in those circumstances. Unless he was also driving recklessly (and you have witnesses to that effect) I suspect that the lack of insurance and his reluctance to give his details (which is illegal) won't be relevant as far as blame are concerned.

As for the fault - it does sound as though both parties may have had a part to play, but difficult to judge without further information.

As for the insurance company, unless it is clear that one party is not at fault (eg when you are stationary and hit from behind, the usual assumption is that the other driver is at fault) they normally do split the blame ('knock for knock')

I hope it works out ok for your son.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Daddynoob]

Thanks for the great advice

I thought it might have been different as the other driver was over taking parked vehicles and on the wrong side of the road
On the other hand it was on a bend
It is really frustrating as our insurance said the witness did not see the accident
We said 5 times we know that BUT he did see who was driving and he shouldn’t have been driving as he wasn’t insured to drive

His car is wrote off
So what will happen if it goes 50/50 what settlement will he get
Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hilly10]

This is why I always have a dashcam plus you get 10% reduction in your premium

[Daddynoob]

We got him one for Xmas
After the accident


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve27752]

Thanks for the great advice

I thought it might have been different as the other driver was over taking parked vehicles and on the wrong side of the road
On the other hand it was on a bend
It is really frustrating as our insurance said the witness did not see the accident
We said 5 times we know that BUT he did see who was driving and he shouldn’t have been driving as he wasn’t insured to drive

His car is wrote off
So what will happen if it goes 50/50 what settlement will he get
Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the other driver was passing stationary vehicles it may have necessitated crossing the white line.

Another minor point is that the ‘witness’ did not see the male driving, he saw him in the drivers seat after the accident.

Unfortunately, Nock for nock sounds about right.

[Daddynoob]

Unfortunately there was no road markings as it was on a housing estate road and my son was about 20 ft from home

The witness was about 30ft from the accident when it happened
He heard the crash as he was talking to a neighbour and had direct sight and ran over to the driver to see if he was ok then he went to my son to see if he was ok


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ralphy]

I think you've answered (what I think is) your own question 'The insurance is saying if it goes to court the judge will rule 50/50'.


​R

[Daddynoob]

Deep down I agreed with the insurance
But I was hoping there might have been something in his favour
Would it affect the claim if it was proven that the driver wasn’t insured

And is there a percentage his insurance will go up or is it on the individuals pay out or crash circumstances

Thanks for all the replies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brucelee]

It's 50/50 all day. Insurance companies won't even try to prove otherwise unless it's 100% clear.
It costs more for them to go to court to prove blame than it is just to pay out on their own client.

[Daddynoob]

So will he still get a full payout for the value of the car approx £600
Or will it be a reduced payout

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jukeboxs]

Didn’t the police attend and didn’t they take a statement from the witness to confirm the male was driving (in driving seat vs driving, seems the same in my book)? If so, I can’’t understand why this information isn’t being used by your son’s insurers? I’m also surprised a car can be a write-off at 10mph? (My brief observations, not helpful, sorry.) Sounds very unfortunate for your son, I hope it works out for him.

[Daddynoob]

Police will only attend if someone is hurt

My son knows the road and it is a bad bend so always go slow but I think the other driver in a big Audi was going a bit faster
My son was only in a little Citroen
It would cost more to repair than the cars value


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Meesterbond]

So will he still get a full payout for the value of the car approx £600
Or will it be a reduced payout

Assuming that there are no injuries and no one is pushing for whiplash etc then he'll get back either the costs to repair the car or the value of a replacement, whichever's smaller. From memory an insurer will write a car off if the repair costs are >80% of the value (or thereabouts) so in this case they'll probably offer £3-400 and you'll have to negotiate them upwards.

[JonRA]

Assuming that there are no injuries and no one is pushing for whiplash etc then he'll get back either the costs to repair the car or the value of a replacement, whichever's smaller. From memory an insurer will write a car off if the repair costs are >80% of the value (or thereabouts) so in this case they'll probably offer £3-400 and you'll have to negotiate them upwards.

Less his excess, presumably?

[Daddynoob]

Think they are claiming
And the female passenger was also pregnant
It’s a bit annoying knowing he shouldn’t have been driving


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eldrich]

Think they are claiming
And the female passenger was also pregnant
It’s a bit annoying knowing he shouldn’t have been driving


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The nurse may be on dodgy ground here too, if she was the hirer and she knew that the guy wasn't insured to drive it then she may have a problem because she has willingly allowed someone to drive a car she is responsible for knowing they are not insured to do that.

I think if I was going to lose my no-claim bonus, got through all the hassle of replacing the car I would be making a fuss of the no-insurance aspect to the fuzz seeing there looks to be at least two people who have been naughty here.

Perhaps post on PistonHeads in the Speed/Plot/Law forums?

[Daddynoob]

Thanks for that eldrich


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingstepper]

Think they are claiming
And the female passenger was also pregnant
It’s a bit annoying knowing he shouldn’t have been driving


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who claiming, her? Who is named as the other driver given to son's insurer?

Would have made a fuss and called the police if driver would't give name, though not sure they'd do anything.

[Daddynoob]

There was 2 in the car
He was driving and she was a passenger but he gave her name as the driver
I think she is claiming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingstepper]

There was 2 in the car
He was driving and she was a passenger but he gave her name as the driver
I think she is claiming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shouldn't accept that name, say name wasn't given.

[sundial]

There was 2 in the car
He was driving and she was a passenger but he gave her name as the driver
I think she is claiming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Other driver was likely not insured.

Other car's 'lessee' is obliged to advise her insurer ... and her lease company

Did your son take and submit photos of the accident location to his insurance company ... and thus show that other driver was on wrong side of road?

Nurse's pregnancy and her occupation ... both irrelevant.

Your son should report the matter to the police to advise that driver was likely not insured.

It's a mess ... and the other car's lessee is progressing the matter into a bigger mess by claiming she was driving ... she is likely making a fraudulent claim and risks prosecution

Fraudulent claims cost the insurance industry ££millions and result in all premiums being higher than necessary.

Your son could, if necessary, approach a 'no win no fee' solicitor for advice

dunk

[Daddynoob]

Really good point
Will the police still look into it after nearly a year

All photos sent
Insurance company is not very helpful saying there was no road markings
His old driving instructor said so does that mean if there is no road markings we can drive anywhere on the road

Will try and post some pics

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sundial]

Really good point
Will the police still look into it after nearly a year

All photos sent
Insurance company is not very helpful saying there was no road markings
His old driving instructor said so does that mean if there is no road markings we can drive anywhere on the road

Will try and post some pics

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why has this dragged on for over a year?
Has your son taken all reasonable steps to progress the claim?
Is the lease company progressing the lessor's claim and trying to blame your son?
If so, maybe your insurance company should be made aware again that the lessor (nurse) was not driving.
Housing estate roads often have no road markings and drivers rely on common sense ... but lessor appears to have none when allowing third party to drive ... and third party has none in wanting or agreeing to drive without insurance.
Lessor's insurance company would likely not be progressing the claim if aware vehicle was driven by uninsured third party ... they have no liability for uninsured drivers.
Could be a case of your son's word against the lessor's word regarding who was driving. If police had been involved from the start of claims procedures the matter might not have dragged on for so long.
If your son is deemed 50% to blame that should not affect his claim if he has a comprehensive policy ... as distinct from third party type policy where only the 'third party's' (the lessor's) vehicle damage would be covered.
If your son's car was only worth £600 and he has an excess, then his insurers may only value the claim at £600 less your son's insurance policy excess ... regardless of the insurance policy's declared value.
The excess can be claimed on the lessor's policy ... but only if she is insured and if your son was blameless. Your son's insurer should not be progressing any counter claim from the lessor's or leasing company's insurer if the other driver was not insured.
Would the police be interested in pursuing the matter after one year? Maybe ... especially if on checking they become aware of a driver's past convictions. Reluctance to admit he was driving could be due to no driving licence and/or past driving convictions ... and other reasons.
Your son could consider advising his insurer (in writing) that he is considering involving the police because he is '... adamant in stating that the lessor was not driving' . Both the lessor and the alleged driver are witnesses to the accident so alleged driver's name should be documented on lessor's insurance claim (as a witness) ... even if he failed to give his name to your son at time of the accident. Your son's insurer should have access to the lessor's insurance claim statement. Insurance companies claims departments employ many claims clerks ... some competent ... others not so competent. If your son is getting no satisfaction he should also consider contacting the claims dept manager ... and advise the clerk dealing with the claim of his intention.

dunk

[Daddynoob]

Thank you so much
There was a witness to who was driving but did not see the crash

My son paid extra for legal

They where made aware of a concern who was driving when my son made the claim to the advisor
They have apparently involved a fraud team who have said they interviewed the witness but he did not see the accident
My son has told them on several occasions he knows that
He is trying to tell them the witness saw who was driving and it wasn’t the female

Will try and post a few pics and copy of email
As I probably have missed bits out

Thanks for the great advices

Cheers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kris]

To establish my Bona Fides here, I've worked in the insurance industry for over 25 years as Senior management running claims departments in the UK and globally, for several UK "Household names" companies, including setting up the claims dept for a very successful direct insurer, so have a little experience in this area.

The issue of who was driving the third party’s car is a red herring here as far as the OP's sons liability claim goes.

The accident occurred on a bend, on a narrow road, with no road markings, where they collided head on. Each party is blaming the other, the only witness didn’t see the accident so is unable to comment on liability.

Please ignore those who say "the insurer won’t bother fighting it as its expensive for them, they can't be bothered" etc etc. The simple fact is insurers see hundreds of similar claims each month, they'll have run a fair percentage of those to trial in the past, or there is clear case law setting out legal precedents on what happens in such cases. In short, we know which cases are viable to fight and which the judges will follow the case law and so have a very good idea of what the settlement will be.

Without a witness who saw the accident and who can offer an opinion on whose fault it was, If it gets as far as court the judge will simply hear both drivers version of events, accept that there are no witnesses who saw the collision and say it’s one person word against the other and giving a 50/50 judgment, and no, insurers don't like that anymore than insureds do, but that’s what happens.

Insurers are morally obliged to believe their insured, until it's proved otherwise, after all you expect your insurer to believe you as you are telling 100% the truth aren't you, right ? Only problem is you need to remember there are at least 2 vehicles involved in the accident and thus 2 insured's each with their own version and "recollection" of events in any accident, especially once they realise it’s going to cost them money, so one of them is going to be disappointed.

As for who was driving the vehicle, that’s a separate issue. It's relevant to the third party and their insurers more than the OP.

By all means report them to the Police, but again without evidence it's one person’s word against the other. It's the Police's role to investigate criminal activity and prosecute, not a third-party insurer, but frankly, one year after an accident, with no injuries, the Police will most likely have other priorities.

As an aside, an uninsured person can make a claim for damages if they are only partially or not to blame for an accident. Not being insured, does not preclude you from making a claim under tort from a liable party or their insurer...and no, we don't like the way that works either, but that’s what UK law says......

Worst case for the OP's son is that the driver wasn't covered, and the civil case gets dragged out even further as it HAS to run through court proceedings to get a judgement against the actual driver, that can then be enforced against the insurers of the vehicle. Again, liability for an accident, is a separate issue to whether the driver was insured so it will still end up 50/50 regardless of who was behind the wheel of the tp car.

As far as "No win , no fee" solicitors go, it’s very unlikely they would want this case at all. It's "complicated", meaning it needs them to work. They much prefer the simple cases where the claim simply progresses through their automated system without any disputes, earning them their fee for issuing standardised word-processed letters.

OP, I'm happy to answer any sensible questions on this either on here or by PM.

[Kingstepper]

Surely before the judge can hear both driver’s version of events it has to be established who those drivers are.