Litigation.

[Alan de Enfield]

Let's hope you win in court. As "a man on the Clapham Omnibus" I fail to see the logic of the Co-Op's argument. Your wife would not have driven into the tree if the other car had not collided with her.

 

Did the Police bring any charges against the other driver?

 

The officer on the scene said they would be doing for 'Due care and attention' or maybe 'dangerous driving'.

 

One funny aspect was when, with them all trapped inside the car, a fireman asked my wife 'where is the battery' (as they couldn't find it - on a Jaguar its in the boot) and she remembers saying "I haven't had it, honestly, I haven't"

 

The Police 'accident inspector' (or whatever he is called) stated that in almost any other car they would have been lucky to not have had a 'death'.

They all survived due solely to the weight, solid build and door impact bars of the Jaguar S-Type

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[nicknorman]

Ouch, looks nasty. Thank heavens for all the air bags etc.

[Machpoint005]

Ouch, looks nasty. Thank heavens for all the air bags etc.

 

Seems to prove the point that the bigger the car, the safer the occupants will be.

[WotEver]

One funny aspect was when, with them all trapped inside the car, a fireman asked my wife 'where is the battery' (as they couldn't find it - on a Jaguar its in the boot) and she remembers saying "I haven't had it, honestly, I haven't"

That is indeed very funny (now, in hindsight)

 

As for the strength of the S-Type. I was driving one when I got hit in the back by an Avensis on the M40 (some idiot stopped in the outside lane for no apparent reason, everyone else also stopped except the car behind me, then the car that caused it drove off). The Toyota was an undriveable mess. My S continued its drive with a bent wing and boot lid. The boot still worked.

 

Edit for autowrong

Edited February 10, 2017 by WotEver

[Mike Todd]

 

It's a shame that in this country we appear to have forgotten the meaning of the word "Accident".

an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

 

In other words... every 'accident' (even if it wasn't your fault) isn't necessarily someone else's fault.

But the problem is that when it comes to court, liability (not the same as blame) must be apportioned and the rules for this are not always what the man on the Clapham Omnibus might naturally expect.

[Machpoint005]

 

You obviously haven't read it (5 minutes?) and have no idea what the dispute was about. Like most people on here you don't want the truth to interfere with your prejudices.

 

Carry on with your endless ill informed diatribes with your fellow keyboard commentators; remember there are very few of you so what you say matters not a jot.

 

Totally inaccurate.

 

I would have persevered had the choice of colour scheme on your blog made the words easier to read. However, I am remarkably thick-skinned so I don't take your remarks personally. I'll just point out that nothing I have posted on the subject was personally insulting to you or anybody, and that like everyone else, I am entitled to form and express my own opinion based on whatever I think relevant.

 

My blood pressure is high enough without your assistance, but it may well be lower than yours.

[WotEver]

But the problem is that when it comes to court, liability (not the same as blame) must be apportioned and the rules for this are not always what the man on the Clapham Omnibus might naturally expect.

What I'm saying is "why must it go to court?" Prior to the '80s we were never this litigious - we caught it off the Yanks.

[Machpoint005]

But the problem is that when it comes to court, liability (not the same as blame) must be apportioned and the rules for this are not always what the man on the Clapham Omnibus might naturally expect.

 

Such as claims for asbestos-related diseases. Only one single fibre is needed to cause death, so even if there were several employers, it is impossible to say from which one the fatal fibre came. Hence, all employers (defendants) are 100% liable.

What I'm saying is "why must it go to court?" Prior to the '80s we were never this litigious - we caught it off the Yanks.

 

We still went to Court but many poor claims were weeded out by the Legal Aid system. Nowadays, no legal aid, so pay for your ATE* insurance and away you go!

 

 

* After The Event

[WotEver]

 

We still went to Court but many poor claims were weeded out by the Legal Aid system.

I'm thinking more of the "have you had an accident at work?" guys. And the ambulance chasers who pestered me for months to claim whiplash after my accident even though I suffered none. I got very angry with one lot who insisted that 'money has already been put aside' when I shouted at them that they may be prepared to perjure themselves but I wasn't.

[Machpoint005]

I'm thinking more of the "have you had an accident at work?" guys. And the ambulance chasers who pestered me for months to claim whiplash after my accident even though I suffered none. I got very angry with one lot who insisted that 'money has already been put aside' when I shouted at them that they may be prepared to perjure themselves but I wasn't.

 

Yes - the same (or a related) point. Legal Aid solicitors weren't allowed to tout for business, and many compo claims were backed by the Trades Unions

[David Mack]

A slightly different scenario, but still raises the question of responsibility :

 

18 months ago my wife was happily driving along an A-Road, (Son in passenger seat, Daughter in law in back seat) when she was 'T-Boned' by a driver emerging from a side road who had not realised there was a T-Junction.

 

The force pushed the car off the road, but it was still travelling forwards, went into a ditch and smashed (with considerable force) into a tree.

Wife and son BADLY shaken, no broken bones, bad bruising. Daughter in Law broke her back in 3-places due to the impact and the seat belt restraining the lower part of her body. allowing the upper part to 'whiplash' sideways.

 

3rd party driver's insurance (the Co-Op) have admitted liability, paid in full for the written-off car, paid my wife 'damages' but have refused to pay Daughter in law costs and damages claiming that she was injured by my wife driving into a tree and she should therefore sue my wife.

 

We are still awaiting a court date (and Son is severely out of pocket as DiL is not a UK citizen and hospital costs etc all have to be paid for by him/us)

 

 

 

CO-OP 'Ethical company' - not in my book

Whatever else you may think of the Co-Op they clearly were not responsible for the harm caused to your daughter in law. So isn't this the point at which you write to the other driver that as he is responsible for her injuries , and his insurers have declined to pay up, you will be suing him personally for damages and costs?

[WotEver]

I guess this is why 'legal cover' is an option on car insurance policies?

 

So they can do that chasing for you.

[Guest]

A slightly different scenario, but still raises the question of responsibility :

 

18 months ago my wife was happily driving along an A-Road, (Son in passenger seat, Daughter in law in back seat) when she was 'T-Boned' by a driver emerging from a side road who had not realised there was a T-Junction.

 

The force pushed the car off the road, but it was still travelling forwards, went into a ditch and smashed (with considerable force) into a tree.

Wife and son BADLY shaken, no broken bones, bad bruising. Daughter in Law broke her back in 3-places due to the impact and the seat belt restraining the lower part of her body. allowing the upper part to 'whiplash' sideways.

 

3rd party driver's insurance (the Co-Op) have admitted liability, paid in full for the written-off car, paid my wife 'damages' but have refused to pay Daughter in law costs and damages claiming that she was injured by my wife driving into a tree and she should therefore sue my wife.

 

We are still awaiting a court date (and Son is severely out of pocket as DiL is not a UK citizen and hospital costs etc all have to be paid for by him/us)

 

 

 

CO-OP 'Ethical company' - not in my book

That sounds horrendous, your wife was violently pushed off course and the velocity propelled her in to the tree. Drove in to it, really?!

 

Best of luck with court I hope you get a result.

[Mike Todd]

That sounds horrendous, your wife was violently pushed off course and the velocity propelled her in to the tree. Drove in to it, really?!

 

Best of luck with court I hope you get a result.

We have to remember that if the claimant exaggerates but an iota in their claim then they are liable to be accused of fraud. If an insurance company is inventive in ways of arguing that they should not pay out on a claim then they are just good managers keeping down the cost of premiums for everyone else. . . (Not a comment about any specific case other than ones I have known personally)

[Alan de Enfield]

We have to remember that if the claimant exaggerates but an iota in their claim then they are liable to be accused of fraud. If an insurance company is inventive in ways of arguing that they should not pay out on a claim then they are just good managers keeping down the cost of premiums for everyone else. . . (Not a comment about any specific case other than ones I have known personally)

 

Completely agree and accept the point - however in our case ....................

 

X-rays of Daughter in law's spine after surgery must be irrefutable evidence of the result of the accident.

(3 fractures braced)

 

 

[Mike Todd]

 

Completely agree and accept the point - however in our case ....................

 

 

Just so. My gripe is that there is little penalty for an insurance company to put forward ludicrous reasons for not paying out whilst for the claimant it can be a criminal matter. I have long wished there to be comparable penalties for insurers who are found to have acted unreasonably.

[Laurie Booth]

CO-OP 'Ethical company' - not in my book

I agree, hope you do well against the Co-Op, thieving barstewards.

[Horace42]

A slightly different scenario, but still raises the question of responsibility :

 

18 months ago my wife was happily driving along an A-Road, (Son in passenger seat, Daughter in law in back seat) when she was 'T-Boned' by a driver emerging from a side road who had not realised there was a T-Junction.

 

The force pushed the car off the road, but it was still travelling forwards, went into a ditch and smashed (with considerable force) into a tree.

Wife and son BADLY shaken, no broken bones, bad bruising. Daughter in Law broke her back in 3-places due to the impact and the seat belt restraining the lower part of her body. allowing the upper part to 'whiplash' sideways.

 

3rd party driver's insurance (the Co-Op) have admitted liability, paid in full for the written-off car, paid my wife 'damages' but have refused to pay Daughter in law costs and damages claiming that she was injured by my wife driving into a tree and she should therefore sue my wife.

 

We are still awaiting a court date (and Son is severely out of pocket as DiL is not a UK citizen and hospital costs etc all have to be paid for by him/us)

 

 

 

CO-OP 'Ethical company' - not in my book

I am puzzled. By law we must all have compulsory third party insurance to drive a car on the public roads (similar to boats on canals) for the purpose of compensating those injured due to an accident caused by your negligence.

So on the face of it, you claim from the other driver who was at fault - who in turn passes it to his insurer.

Your policy might have some clause about excluding liability if the passenger is a relative of the driver - but that only applies if the driver was at fault which in this instance it clearly wasn't.

I think you have a valid claim on the other driver.

[1st ade]

We have to remember that if the claimant exaggerates but an iota in their claim then they are liable to be accused of fraud. If an insurance company is inventive in ways of arguing that they should not pay out on a claim then they are just good managers keeping down the cost of premiums for everyone else. . . (Not a comment about any specific case other than ones I have known personally)

 

There is an (anecdotal) story of a Rolls Royce being shipped to the USA. It was insured for the journey, as it was being unloaded one of the strops slipped and the car plummeted onto the quayside from height.

 

The insurance company politely responded that the car was insured for the sea crossing and the policy ceased as soon as any part of the vehicle touched American soil. The fact that, at this point, the car was intact meant that the vehicle was in good order at the point where their liability ended...

[Chewbacka]

I am not a lawyer, but this is what I think is the case - talking generally and not specifically this case.

The case with car insurance, is that you actually make the claim against the driver of the other vehicle. The condition of the other driver's insurance policy is that you must allow the insurance company to 'manage' the claim. So if their insurance company thinks your claim is weak then they will refuse to compensate you. You are free to back down or take further action against the other driver. If the loss is something that your insurance company could be liable for if the other side will not pay (for example you have fully comp insurance and the other party even though they caused the accident will not accept liability) then they would have an interest in progressing your claim (to save their money) if they think it is a strong case. But if they have no liability then they will not take action.

So in the case of a passenger in the car, if they wish to make a claim (the driver can not claim as they are not the one suffering the hurt/loss), they need to consider who they wish to claim against, so would they argue their hurt was caused by the other driver (so claim against the other driver) or do they think they have more chance of claiming against the driver of the car they were in.

They may need to consider using a solicitor (maybe a no win no fee solicitor, though I think some take a big chunk as their fee if they win) to assist their claim.

 

Added - So each person that wishes to make a claim must make their own claim and decide who they wish to claim against. But as I said I am not a lawyer and my only real advice is anyone hurt should seek their own legal advice.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Chewbacka

[Alan de Enfield]

I am not a lawyer, but this is what I think is the case - talking generally and not specifically this case.

The case with car insurance, is that you actually make the claim against the driver of the other vehicle. The condition of the other driver's insurance policy is that you must allow the insurance company to 'manage' the claim. So if their insurance company thinks your claim is weak then they will refuse to compensate you. You are free to back down or take further action against the other driver. If the loss is something that your insurance company could be liable for if the other side will not pay (for example you have fully comp insurance and the other party even though they caused the accident will not accept liability) then they would have an interest in progressing your claim (to save their money) if they think it is a strong case. But if they have no liability then they will not take action.

So in the case of a passenger in the car, if they wish to make a claim (the driver can not claim as they are not the one suffering the hurt/loss), they need to consider who they wish to claim against, so would they argue their hurt was caused by the other driver (so claim against the other driver) or do they think they have more chance of claiming against the driver of the car they were in.

They may need to consider using a solicitor (maybe a no win no fee solicitor, though I think some take a big chunk as their fee if they win) to assist their claim.

 

Added - So each person that wishes to make a claim must make their own claim and decide who they wish to claim against. But as I said I am not a lawyer and my only real advice is anyone hurt should seek their own legal advice.

 

We fortunately had taken the extra 'legal expenses' cover on the insurance, so we are covered. The 1st solicitors went 'bust' a couple of months after starting the claim, so we then had to start again with the new firm who had taken over ('purchased') the case load from the previous solicitors. I took several months to 'get them up to speed' but the filings have now been made to the court and we are awaiting a date.

Legal costs are so far somewhere over the £100,000 mark - thank goodness we took the 'legal extras' option.

[Chewbacka]

 

We fortunately had taken the extra 'legal expenses' cover on the insurance, so we are covered. The 1st solicitors went 'bust' a couple of months after starting the claim, so we then had to start again with the new firm who had taken over ('purchased') the case load from the previous solicitors. I took several months to 'get them up to speed' but the filings have now been made to the court and we are awaiting a date.

Legal costs are so far somewhere over the £100,000 mark - thank goodness we took the 'legal extras' option.

I bet if you win your insurer will be pushing for costs to be awarded

 

Added for clarity

Edited February 11, 2017 by Chewbacka

[nicknorman]

It does seem an extraordinary case, which makes me think that perhaps there are some details we don't know. Anyway, of course you can't sue someone else's insurance company - you don't have any sort of a contract with them - you can only sue the other driver. But if the reason why the car went into a tree was the other driver, it would seem stupidly clear cut that the passenger sues the other driver and their insurance company takes the hit. That it seems to be not that clear cut, with the other driver's insurance company risking a lot of costs, is what makes me think there is more to it.

[ditchcrawler]

My sister was involved in a minor shunt that was deemed to be her fault on a roundabout in Norwich, Insurance details exchanged and her car repaired end of, well no, some time later my sister got a count court judgement to pay for the repairs to the other car as her insurance company had not coughed up.

[Alan de Enfield]

It does seem an extraordinary case, which makes me think that perhaps there are some details we don't know. Anyway, of course you can't sue someone else's insurance company - you don't have any sort of a contract with them - you can only sue the other driver. But if the reason why the car went into a tree was the other driver, it would seem stupidly clear cut that the passenger sues the other driver and their insurance company takes the hit. That it seems to be not that clear cut, with the other driver's insurance company risking a lot of costs, is what makes me think there is more to it.

 

Hence our Solicitor filing the court papers and awaiting a date.

The other driver (and their insurers) have admitted liability for the accident, and, have already settled and paid out on my wife's claim and the cost of writing of the car.

They (the Co-Op) have made an 'offer' to my Son to cover his loss of earnings, costs and damages, but as the Daughter in Laws claim is likely to be in the 'hundreds of thousands of pounds', they have suggested that the severity of her injuries was caused by my wife driving into a tree, and not, the original 'accident' for which their 'driver' was cvered, and for which they have paid out for.