IME, you have to go one step further, and claim back your excess too from the guilty party. That's where the legal protection comes in very handy, and it's that which saves your NCD.
The last time someone drive into the back of me, at the scene, he took my diary and wrote that he was entirely responsible, signed it, and gave it back. I had no problems with that claim at all.
However could such action be fraud?
ah yes it takes me back,
driving home from work, in the snow/slush, on a back country road, doing about 20 mph. Within microseconds I was pirouetting, did 2 full turns and ended up reversed into the drive of the only house for 5 miles having missed
2 trees either side............a very near miss. Bloody rear wheel drive cars..........sold it soon after and never had one since. Front wheeler and a 4x4 now.
Only as the result of some shouting, in my case, as previously observed.
Her claim is more likely to be against A, or possibly A and B if there is any contributory negligence by B. Whilst a car driving off the the highway and causing damage is prima facie evidence of negligence, B can avoid liabilty if he/she can substantiate they were not negligent because the accident was wholly the fault of A. So it basically depends on what A and B claim happened, whether she has to claim against one or both, or what account any independent witness gives if the circumstances are in dispute.
Toom
The news clips they keep showing of uncontrollable cars on the snow are always rear wheel drive BMW's/Mercs.
She claims off b , b claims off a
Go through my fully comprehensive insurance with legal cover. They sort it all out[1], as that's what I pay them for.
This is the main reason why to me it is always worth paying for a good comprehensive policy with legal expenses cover. Especially in a slightly complicated case like this where B is liable for you, but A is probably liable for all of B's liabilities provided that B had not been negligent in any way by having parked where they did.
[1] From experience of a non-fault accident, the way it worked was that I claimed on my own insurance giving details of the other driver and that they had accepted blame[2], paid the excess then some weeks later received a cheque for it back, plus confirmation of the reinstatement of my no-claims bonus, when they had successfully pursued the other insurer. [2] I know you're not meant to, but they did, and in any case it was a rear-ending at a roundabout so totally clear-cut :)Neil
A no-fault claim won't noticeably affect your premium. Lots of them might[1], but one won't. The only downside is that you have to declare it when taking out insurance, but if you have a play with the online insurers you'll note it doesn't affect the premium by any noticeable amount if at all.
You might also find that you are required to involve your insurers by the terms of your contract of insurance.
[1] This might indicate that you're somehow a higher risk of being "on the receiving end", and your insurers *could* end up paying out themselves if a hit-and-run occurred, say. Think "She's not had an accident, but she's seen many", as it were.Neil
In a sense it *is* a no-blame bonus, in that if your insurer successfully reclaims the full cost of your claim from the other driver's insurance, your discount is reinstated.
It only isn't a "no-blame" bonus in the sense that if your insurer pays a claim and can't reclaim the full cost of it you'll still lose it even if you weren't at fault. Hit-and-runs and similar would be an example of this.
Neil
Because it is a "material fact" and not to declare it to your insurer is a violation of the terms of the policy?
If you're going to declare it, which you should (must, I guess), you might as well use their services to do the admin for you.
Neil
It is however, worth bearing in mind that, for good reason, it is a condition of most motor insurance policies that you do not give any admission of liabilty to another party. It is particularly unwise to decide to do so at the scene of the accident.
Toom
No, she has no claim against B purely because B collided with her. B is only reponsible if negligent. The OP's basic description implies negligence is wholly or primarily on A's part.
Toom
yes and it was a BMW 3 Series I had.............
She says the car drives into as well as knocked into so b has some responsiblity , thats all that is required for a claim , b insurance will then pass on the cost to a less any portion attributed to b
If the car was knocked into then the claim must be against a
Small but very significant difference
It will depend on the specific circumstances. It matters not the extent to which B is either 'knocked into' or 'drives into' the other car. What matters is whether there is any negligence on the part of the driver of B. You may be partly knocked into another car, and partly drive or swerve into another car when trying to avoid or mitigate the collision, and still have no liability. The point is, the OP suggested his friend pursue a claim against B insurers, and it is unlikely, from the circumstances described, that that is the only course to pursue, since A seems to have whole or primary responsibility.However A and B and/or their insurers decide to split and handle it is up to themselves but the OP's friend would be well advised to register a claim against both A and B, and certainly against A.
Toom
I'm surprised that was worth the paper it was written on - what was to stop him later claiming concussion and furthermore insisting that the police take action against you for intimidating him into writing it - "the other bloke was a nutter, he had a knife, and I wrote it to keep him happy, arest him"
May be because the person was honest enough to hold up his hand and accept responsiblity for his own actions
There arn't that many around... Anyway if 'Accidents are Us' lawyers get hold of the claim, how easy would it be for them to dismiss that piece of evidence? (serious question)
rather difficult if its signed but not impossible
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required