Crash - Am I missing something???

[Ads]

At the weekend a mate of mine had an accident in his new car (VW Touran) that he'd owned for the grand total of 18 hours!!!

Here's what happened:

He was driving along a road and he wanted to turn right into a side road. He indicated, pulled up opposite the right turning, and then started to turn into it, as you normally would.
Just as he started to turn another car that was behind him tried to overtake him and ended up crashing into the side of his car.
See image below. My mate is the red line, and the idiot is the yellow arrow.

Also notice the zigzag lines and pedestrian crossing, so this guy shouldn't have been overtaking anyway.

Anyway, he's spoken to his insurance company (Elephant) thinking it would be a clear cut case in his favour. Think again!
Straight away they said it will be a 50/50 split liability claim because he "should've checked his mirrors and seen the other driver overtaking".

Now am I missing something here??

It's a normal two-way road with two lanes, one lane for each direction, my mate indicated and then slowed/stopped, glanced in his mirror and saw a car a few yards behind him, checked again for oncoming traffic and a clear route into the road he was about to turn into and moved off. It was at this point that the other driver decided to continue at the speed he was approaching at, and pull over to the right to try and overtake.

How can this possibly be a 50/50 blame claim?? Even if only based on the fact that this other driver was attempting to overtake on zigzag lines and a pedestrian crossing!

The damage to my mate's car is driver's door - big dent, front wing - big dent, bumper - scraped, alloy wheel - badly scraped, so it's going to be a costly repair.

The other driver's excuse.... "It's your fault as you were going slowly so I tried to overtake you".

To me this one of the most no-fault claim as I've seen in ages.

Am I wrong??

 

[jojo]

If your mate had indicated to turn right, I don't know how he can be put at blame in any case? The insurance surely does work in mysterious ways now these days.

FML!

 

[Ads]

If your mate had indicated to turn right, I don't know how he can be put at blame in any case? The insurance surely does work in mysterious ways now these days.

FML!

He kept repeating this to the insurance company but they kept repeating that he should've been checking his mirrors. Surely there's a point where you've got to stop checking your mirrors and look where you're actually driving!

I'm wondering if they have taken into account that he's got a £750 excess, plus his premium will go up because he'll have zero NCB etc, and some how think it'll be less of a headache/cheaper to go 50/50 rather than fighting for a no liability claim.

I think it's bang out of order that they aren't prepared to fight his corner on this one.


Also, just a thought.... lets says that both parties are insured by the same insurance company. It would be in the interest of the insurance company to go for a 50/50 liability settlement, because the cost of repair would be the same as it would be if only one person was to blame, but they'll get the excess of both parties instead of just one.

 

[sidibear]

Has it been reported to the police? What about the witness statements?

Also, I have found out over the years that with car insurance you get what you pay for. I was insured with NIG through Adrian Flux because it was cheap, and when I had a no fault claim it took eight months to get sorted. Renewed my insurance with Aviva, couple of hundred quid more but when I had another no fault claim, within 10 minutes of being on the phone to them they had my car booked in and a courtesy car arranged.

 

[danA3T]

Sorry to hear about your mate, but this is common, and I suppose to the letter of the highway code, they're right. No matter what real world driving is like and that some noddy shouldn't be overtaking on zig-zag lines.

 

[Ads]

Has it been reported to the police? What about the witness statements?

Also, I have found out over the years that with car insurance you get what you pay for. I was insured with NIG through Adrian Flux because it was cheap, and when I had a no fault claim it took eight months to get sorted. Renewed my insurance with Aviva, couple of hundred quid more but when I had another no fault claim, within 10 minutes of being on the phone to them they had my car booked in and a courtesy car arranged.

It wasn't reported to the police. Apparently if you put a call in they ask if anyone has been injured, and when you say no they won't attend.

Elephant have already arranged a repair and courtesy car so that side of things are ok, but the impression he gets is they just can't be ***** with the claim, and that attitude is potentially going to cost him over a grand.

 

[Ads]

Sorry to hear about your mate, but this is common, and I suppose to the letter of the highway code, they're right. No matter what real world driving is like and that some noddy shouldn't be overtaking on zig-zag lines.

But are they right, even according to the highway code?? This is what I can't understand. I can't see how he could've done anything different, if of course it happened how he explained it....

One minute he was about to turn right and could see the other car approaching directly behind him, and then just as he turns and is crossing the other side of the road the guy ploughs into him.

 

[camscockle20vT]

Hi ads iv not read all your replys, but 9 times out of 10 it will be the case that your mate and this nob jokey that crashed into him are both insured by the same under writer. So they can sting you both without paying out what they should. Id tell your mate that he should say that he will take the matter to trading standards, aswell id get the proffesionals help, contact your local police station and request consultation for a road incident, show them the evidence and they should be able to help with a letter of reccomendation that you could show trading standards and the insurer. I hate seeing these insurance companys mug people off, whats the point of it when the excess cost more than the damadge most of the time,and your premium goes up, Hope this helps.

 

[Ads]

Hi ads iv not read all your replys, but 9 times out of 10 it will be the case that your mate and this nob jokey that crashed into him are both insured by the same under writer. So they can sting you both without paying out what they should. Id tell your mate that he should say that he will take the matter to trading standards, aswell id get the proffesionals help, contact your local police station and request consultation for a road incident, show them the evidence and they should be able to help with a letter of reccomendation that you could show trading standards and the insurer. I hate seeing these insurance companys mug people off, whats the point of it when the excess cost more than the damadge most of the time,and your premium goes up, Hope this helps.

We did a quick search and it looks like they are different underwriters, although both based in Gibraltar.

There were council CCTV present so he's going to try his luck with that too.
Fingers crossed for him, it's depressing him!!!

 

[camscockle20vT]

Id be ****** to say the least! Seen my fair share of people screwed over, hope the cctv helps dude.

 

[s5joe]

Same thing happened to me and I had to take a 75/25 on it I was on my bike and he lied so much it was unreal.

 

[Jameze]

That's ridiculous, the guy overtaking should be at fault. End of!

I'm pretty sure it's in the highway code that you can't overtake on zig-zag lines, for the simple reason being that if you go to overtake someone and then you have to stop to let someone cross then you're blocking the road for emergency vehicle access. Surely that's driving without due care?

If that's the case then what this chump did was illegal. How can you possibly be held accountable for that?? The guy's an idiot and sounds like a typical impatient prat to me.

 

[quattrojames]

You're all right in that he shouldn't have been overtaking approaching the crossing, BUT that doesn't indemnify your mate from checking his mirror before turning. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that is the line they're obviously taking. It does seem strange they're not prepared to even try to fight it, I bet the companies are linked somehow.

The Police won't get involved unless there's injury or danage to third party property these days, and even if they did it's unlikely they would get involved in apportioning blame.

Sorry

 

[sportstractor]

funny one that, but arnt you taught mirror-signal-manouvre... so presumably he looked in his mirrors, it was clear, then he went? and in that time between checking mirrors and turning, matey shot around inside of him...

insurance companys will naturally try there luck... so hopefully a bit more pressure might help. CCTV should explain all

 

[Ads]

You're all right in that he shouldn't have been overtaking approaching the crossing, BUT that doesn't indemnify your mate from checking his mirror before turning.

As below...

funny one that, but arnt you taught mirror-signal-manouvre... so presumably he looked in his mirrors, it was clear, then he went? and in that time between checking mirrors and turning, matey shot around inside of him...

Exactly that.
It's like the insurance company was saying he should've still been checking his mirrors even when half way through the manoeuvre.

I reckon this guy either wasn't paying attention and only saw my mate last minute, panicked and tried to swerve around him... or was just so impatient and thought he could squeeze past.

 

[Dazmo]

As below...



Exactly that.
It's like the insurance company was saying he should've still been checking his mirrors even when half way through the manoeuvre.

I reckon this guy either wasn't paying attention and only saw my mate last minute, panicked and tried to swerve around him... or was just so impatient and thought he could squeeze past.

I agree, it was clearly the other guys fault.

It's Mirrors, signal and manuever.

So he checks mirrors, then he signals and then he manuevers., if you have already started to turn and then check your mirrors what difference does it make? as you are already committed, you are already int he other lane.

It is up to the car behind to watch for the signal and manuevers, if the turn has already been started and this guy has then ploughed into the side it is clearly his fault for not reading the road correctly and not being patient.

Plus the fact he has overtaken on the lines, next to a crossing. I would definately speak to a solicitor about this if you have no more luck with the insurance.

 

[jojo]

Let face it, how the offending will have a leg to stand on in the court of law if shown the pic that Ads put arrows in above? Did your mate say he never looked or something? Course he looked in the mirror, he didn't have time to avoid the idiot?!

Or is it just a simple case of your words against mine?

 

[Ads]

Let face it, how the offending will have a leg to stand on in the court of law if shown the pic that Ads put arrows in above? Did your mate say he never looked or something? Course he looked in the mirror, he didn't have time to avoid the idiot?!

Or is it just a simple case of your words against mine?

According to my friend... he looked in his mirror, saw the car directly behind him and still on the correct (left) side of the road, then he looked forward and began to turn into the road on the right. Understandably its all a bit of a blur to him now in terms of exact timings etc of mirrors and manoeuvres, but it was just a standard scenario like every other right turn you make day in day out. Never in a million years did he expect the guy to pull across and try to overtake him.

This turning is the road that my mate lives on so he's done the same move every day for the past couple of years, and there has never been so much as a near miss or anything like this before.

For me, the minute the guy attempts to overtake in a place where it is illegal to do so then it should be case closed and "we don't want to hear any excuses".

 

[Goner]

Tell you mate to thoroughly read his insurance policy regarding 'new for old', some policies specify that if the car insured is deemed a total loss within 12 months of it being brand new they will replace it like for like, they don't always tell you about this so get him to read his documents very carefully.

 

[Ste_Nova]

a no win no fee place would rip the other driver to bits

 

[170quattro]

do you have legal protection with your insurance, either car, or home insurance, or are you a member of the aa or rac with legal cover, if so get them involved with the case and your insurance company. it may make them change their mind. or at lease you can recover any losses you incurr if it's 50/50 like your excess or a nice little whiplash claim