Insurance claim help

[Shaun]

Yep...technically a No No.
However, it is still 'ignored' when sense is used. I did find this. can't find a (known) cop/s post that talks about splitting at all.

ok, so PLEASE stop saying it is ok on the internet, as there a lot of young people on here, who may read that statement and think it is ok because they read it some where.

Sorry to be acting so boring, but some times the WHOLE facts and truth need to be spelled out

[Mystic13]

With insurance there is usually a clause that says if you accept liability prior to any cliam you void the claim. Insurance company's rarely use the out.

In this case you say she accepted liability to you. And then later to your insurer.

If she has accepted it in writing or has stated to your insurer she's accepted it then I think it's case done. I'd be getting the insurer to advise that she had accepted to you and them separately and with the view that she is fault and her acceptance to two separate parties that the matter is now at an end.

If your insurer has paid for your repair that has no bearing on the at fault party and you could still lose no claims bonuses etc.

First port of call is your insurer.
Secondly don't communicate with their insurer ever.
Thirdly go all out for the "she's already accepted liability line". You're now working through your insurer and need to make sure they don't cave in. So a letter to them ASAP would be useful.

Most insurers operate under knock for knock, meaning they recover nothing from her insurance. She may be fighting to retain her no claims. Her insurer may not be aware that she had agreed to the claim.

Have fun with the whole thing. I usually get people to agree on the spot in writing before they leave the scene. it saves so much time if they change their minds later.

I'm withe the lanesplitting is legal, her lane change is illegal and you can hardly argue you didn't see a motorcycle headlight shining straight in your mirror when changing.

Good luck with it.

[MSTRS:Me]

ok, so PLEASE stop saying it is ok on the internet, as there a lot of young people on here, who may read that statement and think it is ok because they read it some where.

Sorry to be acting so boring, but some times the WHOLE facts and truth need to be spelled out

I'm going to argue the point here. Lane splitting IS legal...when the traffic is stationary. The grey areas begin when the traffic is moving...

[mossy1200]

I had similar issue with a guy that came down a local winding road in town speeding and in the wet.When he saw us he braked hard ,lost traction and slid onto our side of the road hitting us head on(we were in our car not bike).
His four wheel drive wrote off our convertable.He accepted liability on the spot and our insurance company contacted him and he accepted liability again.
A few weeks later we were contacted by our insurance company and told we would need to pay our excess because the other insurance company was now claiming that the accident liability was in doubt.

We stuck to our guns and said no to paying excess on the grounds that liabilty had been sorted the minute the other driver admitted they were in the wrong.

The rule is that if you accept liability then YOU ARE LIABLE and this is why you dont accept liabilty or make any indication that your driving is at fault.

If you ever get someone who doesnt accept liability and they are in the wrong then fake an injury.If there is injury involved then the police must attend and will decide who is in the wrong in a report which is used in insurance claims and is final.

As far as im aware lane splitting is legal but you must indicate as a passing move and stay on the rt.You are not alowed to drive down the left hand shoulder of the road as this is classed passing on the left which you cant do unless the vehicle you are passing is turning right.

If your friend sticks to his guns then it will go away.Tell him/her to dispute that he/she has been at fault.The driver changing lanes is required by law to indicate for no less than three seconds before turning or changing lanes.

Also be aware that insurance company knock for knock means they dont always pay each other just to repair their own clients car.
Its serves the insurance companies well when there is no liabilty established as then both companies save the excess figure instead of just one company.

[supraman_nz]

Well the call has been made to the insurance company and esentially they said that the two stories are different (in the detail) and that its likely to go to court. When the subject was brought up regarding her being liable as shes already admitted it , the person was rather vauge in anwsering that.

Just a few notes to this - the letter was from my friends insurance company with items attatched from the other persons insurance company.
and there were witnesses but no contact details were given out , so its one persons word v anothers.

[MSTRS:Me]

Well the call has been made to the insurance company and esentially they said that the two stories are different (in the detail) and that its likely to go to court. When the subject was brought up regarding her being liable as shes already admitted it , the person was rather vauge in anwsering that.

Just a few notes to this - the letter was from my friends insurance company with items attatched from the other persons insurance company.
and there were witnesses but no contact details were given out , so its one persons word v anothers.

If there were 10 people there...there'd be 10 differing stories.
I think you will find that her insurer is trying it on. From your earlier post/s, liability has already been accepted and the claim processed through to completion. Changing stories now is a desperate move on her part to wriggle out of paying the excess. Of course, her insurer will be more than happy to try that path too. Just tell your insurer to pass on the message that it had been sorted as it happened, and you'll see them in court.
I'm betting they'll back off, once they see you're not a walkover.
At least, your mate should...

[The Stranger:Me]

and there were witnesses but no contact details were given out , so its one persons word v anothers.

Something seem amiss here. They have a witness don't they?
Doesn't that make it at least 2 against one?

[The Stranger:Me]

Just tell your insurer to pass on the message that it had been sorted as it happened, and you'll see them in court.
I'm betting they'll back off, once they see you're not a walkover.
At least, your mate should...

I'm not so sure.
They will use small claims wont they.
Both costs and burden of proof is much lower - along the lines of the adjudicators opinion on the balance of probability.
The acceptance of liability clause is in a contract between her and her insurer and gives her insurer an out should they elect to use it.
Why should this extend to the mate?

[MSTRS:Me]

The acceptance of liability clause is in a contract between her and her insurer and gives her insurer an out should they elect to use it.
Why should this extend to the mate?

Surely there isn't a clause that says 'Should the insured admit liability, and we pay out, then we reserve the right to renege on the deal later' ??
I wrote it aimed at the poster. Who says it was his mate. I just forgot that detail...

[supraman_nz]

Something seem amiss here. They have a witness don't they?
Doesn't that make it at least 2 against one?

There were obviously loads of witnesses as it happened in rush hour traffic. Neither party actually got contact details of anyone else at the time (i assume the rest of the traffic just kept on going). There was no one else in the car that was involved. So its bike rider v car drivers version.

[The Stranger:Me]

Surely there isn't a clause that says 'Should the insured admit liability, and we pay out, then we reserve the right to renege on the deal later' ??
I wrote it aimed at the poster. Who says it was his mate. I just forgot that detail...

There is NO contract between the him on one hand and her insurer on the other, so it is largely irrelevent what is in the other insurer's contract. That is of no consequence, You can imagine whatever clause you like - no contract exists so it is all moot.

His insurer may well have acted in their client's (his) best interests and got the claim processed promptly, believing his word, only to find out subsequently (when they go to the other insurer) that there is a dispute.
Should his insurer have held up payment until it was settled - even if this takes 12 months or more? Does that make the dispute any less valid?

There *may* be something at common law that says she has irrevocably accepted liability, however I am unaware of this. Also, should it reach small claims, he had better be ready to prove this. My experience is that small claims don't get too hung up on any but the simplest laws.

[Mom]

I know of someone who ran up the arse of another car in rush hour traffic. Cops were called the whole 9 yards. Yes they got a ticket for failing to stop, they also received a EBA charge on top as you do on yur way to work in the morning

Anyway...a claim was made on their insurance for the repair to the car that was hit along with the car being driven. Both cars were repaired.

All good until they appeared in court and were convicted of EBA. As they walked out of the court a process server approached and served some papers on them. Nett effect here, 6 months walking, a fine of what ever it was back then plus costs and a demand for payment from the insurance company for reimbursement of the costs of repair to both vehicles.

Insurance companies can and do repair vehicles, and then ask for their money back

[Pegasus]

It all comes down to his insurer trying to recover costs from her insurer.

The Insurers will probably both want it to be deemed "Contributory" so both claimants pay an excess, and both parties also lose their no claims bonus. It sucks but it is a “No Claims Bonus”, not a “No Fault Bonus”.

Best case senerio is if his insurer already has something in writing (like a copy of her claim form) admiting liability. I am not sure, but think that under the Privacy Act you have the right to view and correct all information that your Insurer holds about you.

If it all turns to custard:

[Grahameeboy]

While I personally believe that lane splitting should only be done with the onus of responsibility resting fully on the lane splitter the fact that the claim has been approved means they can't back out of it now.

His Insurer's have approved...that does not affect liability..it is the other Insurer's arguing....that's how I read it

[Grahameeboy]

I'm going to argue the point here. Lane splitting IS legal...when the traffic is stationary. The grey areas begin when the traffic is moving...

Agreed....lane splitting when traffic moving is dangerous and with cars everywhere..the bike will be there one minute and not the next...

I lane split a bit but tend to hop between gaps and see what is happening ahead....a bike doing say 70k on the motorway in traffic is not giving other drivers a chance to see them...

I never lane split near on ramps...cars tend to jostle for lanes so potential hazards....

Personally I thing there is contributory negligence