Insurance want to go 50/50 Options

[Cardriver.]

Some one in a van hit me in the back the rear bumper and skirts is scraped. A nuisance he was coming in the opposite direction to turn right i seen him and stopped because its a tight turn he proceeded to turn looked in my mirror i knew he was going to hit me obviously wasn't paying attention and scraped the back of my car coming in the opposite direction. i was stopped. So it was 100% his fault. Don't u agree?

[Advertisement]

[andy_foster]

Don't u agree?

Dunno. Try breathing and composing a calm and easily readable version of events. I'm also not entirely sure what criminal offence you've been charged with.

[StuartBu]

Don't u agree?

Dunno. Try breathing and composing a calm and easily readable version of events. I'm also not entirely sure what criminal offence you've been charged with.

What Charge- am I missing something?
I agree its a totally confusing account.
If it was on a main road Im mot sure I would have stopped- just let the vehicle wanting to turn decide .
As for the bump was it a car behind that hit the OP or was it someone else?

[peterguk]

What Charge- am I missing something?

Post was originally in the Crim. Forum.

[StuartBu]

What Charge- am I missing something?

Post was originally in the Crim. Forum.

Aaaah I see....

[facade]

because its a tight turn he proceeded to turn looked in my mirror i knew he was going to hit me obviously wasn't paying attention and scraped the back of my car coming in the opposite direction. i was stopped.
So it was 100% his fault. Don't u agree?

You stopped in a position where you knew he would hit you as he turned, then did nothing to attract his attention but watch him do it.

His fault - yes he shouldn't have completed the turn and hit you.

Now prove you were stopped with a series of datestamped and witnessed photographs of you standing outside your stationary car whilst this happened. As you can't, and he probably says that you ran into him whilst he was turning it will go 50:50 to save both insurers a lot of money in the long run.

If you'd blown your horn or something, he might have stopped and you could have manoeuvred around him, or flocks of passers-by would have turned to watch and a couple might have acted as witnesses that you were stopped and blowing your horn, which would have put more blame on him.

This post has been edited by facade: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 08:11

[Spandex]

There's a lot of information missing, but I'm struggling to see any combination of events that would put the OP at fault. Even if the van driver began his turn before the OP came to a stop, that still means the van driver was at fault - he should have waited until the way was actually clear, rather than assuming that it would become clear during the course of his manoeuvre, just in time to get across.

I also don't really see how we can assume the OP should have alerted the van driver either. He wasn't aware the van was going to him him until he saw it making the turn in his mirror - that would put the van extremely close to the OPs vehicle, leaving very little time to do anything other than wince.

Now prove you were stopped with a series of datestamped and witnessed photographs of you standing outside your stationary car whilst this happened. As you can't, and he probably says that you ran into him whilst he was turning it will go 50:50 to save both insurers a lot of money in the long run.

For the OP to have run into the van, causing damage to the rear of his vehicle, he would have to have reversed. Whilst it's possible the van driver could go with that laughably implausible story, I would think it more likely they would just try to claim that it's the OPs fault for stopping unexpectedly - most bad drivers don't know they're bad drivers and therefore make no real effort to cover up mistakes that they don't even realise are their mistakes. I would imagine the van driver is happily blaming the OP for stopping unexpectedly and it won't have even occured to him that he needed to make up a lie about the OP reversing into his van.

Not that this is relevant. The OP asked who we thought was at fault - we already know what his insurance think.

[Churchmouse]

Not that this is relevant. The OP asked who we thought was at fault - we already know what his insurance think.

It is possible that the insurance company is as confused about the OP's description as we are. 50:50 seems like a default position.

--Churchmouse

[Spandex]

It is possible that the insurance company is as confused about the OP's description as we are. 50:50 seems like a default position.

I agree and maybe as a result of discussing it here the OP might be able to explain it better to their insurers, but imagining what the van driver is telling his insurance company, then trying to imagine what the OPs insurance company might require to disprove the (also unproven) imaginary van drivers account is still irrelevant.

[Earl Purple]

50/50 is the position they aim to take because they're not rival insurance companies with your best interests against the other party they are all in it together trying to put fault claims onto both of you so you can all get increased premiums next year.

[facade]

50/50 is the position they aim to take because they're not rival insurance companies with your best interests against the other party they are all in it together trying to put fault claims onto both of you so you can all get increased premiums next year.

More likely it is because disputing the claim would ultimately cost whoever lost a great deal more money (which would be passed onto you and me anyway I suppose) and with conflicting statements it is easier/cheaper to split the repair costs evenly, and then charge both drivers more at renewal rather than drag it out and risk losing.

[Neil B]

Not that this is relevant. The OP asked who we thought was at fault - we already know what his insurance think.

It is possible that the insurance company is as confused about the OP's description as we are. 50:50 seems like a default position.

--Churchmouse

I think I've worked it out.

Melee by Neil Black, on Flickr


This post has been edited by Neil B: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 10:22

[DastardlyDick]

50/50 is the position they aim to take because they're not rival insurance companies with your best interests against the other party they are all in it together trying to put fault claims onto both of you so you can all get increased premiums next year.

Surely that wouldn't work if the drivers had protected NCD?
I can't work out how a vehicle coming from the opposite direction and turning right can hit the OPs vehicle in the rear unless the OP made a left turn into a side road and suddenly stopped - for whatever reason - causing the van to hit him.

This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 - 12:07

[Fredd]

Surely that wouldn't work if the drivers had protected NCD?

Having a protected NCD doesn't stop the base price (before the NCD is applied) from going up, supposedly to reflect the increased risk. Even a no-fault accident will increase your renewal quote.