car insurance claim oddity help me understand?

My mum had a crash on Mon night. Weather was filthy, raining with puddles and standing water. She was on a country road, 40mph limit, one road from her home road, when she had a head on with another car. They hit about a quarter on, so someone crossed the centre line, not sure who. There was a witness following my mum. My mum was cut out by the fire brigade and paramedics and taken to hospital, but thankfully apart from whiplash and bruising, no serious injury. Police obviously attended and took statements, and one from my mum the next day. She was then contacted to say that police were satisfied no offence had been commited, it was one of those things and insurance companies would sort it out. They wouldn’t disclose what the other party or the witness had said.

It’s been reported to her insurance who’ve already offered a settlement. Today however she was contacted by the other party’s insurance company, offering a settlement for injuries sustained.

Why? Why would they be involved unless their party was being considered liable? Surely my mum’s ins co would be picking up any rehab / personal injury claim. I’m not particularly interested in arguing whether a personal injury claim is valid, but she’s driven for 55 years without an accident and is trying to understand what happened as according to her she was driving along, a car was coming towards her, lights in the rain and wipers on fast, etc, next moment she’s been hit and spun around. Can she request the other parties’ statements from her insurance?

Her insurance doesn’t cover injury to her, it’s for third parties.

Are you sure it was the other party’s ins co that contacted her?
Ins cos these days tip off ambulance chasers in return for a kick back

Or possibly the other insurer is trying to make a payment now and prevent future (larger) claims when more could be known?

I’d have though her insurer must have copies of the other parties statements in order to make an offer – could she ask them?

steveh – Member
Or possibly the other insurer is trying to make a payment now and prevent future (larger) claims when more could be known?

That’s exactly it. It’s called ‘third party capture’. It’s to prevent claimants (whether genuine or not) racking up huge legal fees by early settlement of the claim first.

It’s either an ambulance chaser chancing their arm, or the other driver has owned up and their insurers want to get in quick to keep costs down.

Ins cos these days tip off ambulance chasers in return for a kick back

This makes me wonder. There is one of two possible things happening here.

The insurance companies themselves are telling the ambulance chasers but this makes no sense. Even if they are getting a kickback, the subsequent claim for whiplash etc will surely far outweigh any kickback.

The alternative is people within the insurance company are leaking the information. That’s surely illegal and a massive data protection breach and the insurers themselves would be actively looking to stop this, plus how would the person leaking the data get a kickback?

The most likely reality is this information is widely available to the ambulance chaser through the MIB and neither the insurer nor any rogue employees are in cahoots with the ambulance chasers as it’s in their best interests to ensure the claims are settled for the lowest possible value.

Is the original question why do the insurance company consider themselves liable when the police are not pressing charges?

Plenty of accidents have have liable parties without their being criminal proceedings?

It sounds like it was the other guys fault, however due to the weather, time of day etc it could have been something like hitting a patch of water or something.So the police either believe he did not act in a way that justifies prosecution, or there would be no case strong enough to take to court.

This does not mean that the other party is liable for the damage, and it’s this claim the other party ins company are trying to minimise. It’s fairly standard now to try to cap payments and by going direct they can get your mum to sign this limitation. Going through your insurance company will mean the bills will keep rising, which is correct when the injuries from a big crash are unknown at this time. But it does put a stop on the folk who are not injured but will accept £500 as they just want a payout, which is not the case here

This thread needs c_g.

She has experience of Ins Co’s employee leaks, and Ins Co’s subsequent denial.

The alternative is people within the insurance company are leaking the information. That’s surely illegal and a massive data protection breach and the insurers themselves would be actively looking to stop this, plus how would the person leaking the data get a kickback?

Can I just pick up on this? My insurance company at the time, Aviva, yes that’s right Aviva, had a member of staff pass on my personal details and I was inundated with calls daily for a year. I took this up to CEO level at Aviva and then lodged a formal complaint with the Financial Ombudsman that my details had been passed on/sold. Nobody was interested. I also spoke to the ICO where I received mixed advice.

Anyone remember Aviva for being in the national news for customers personal information being sold? You couldn’t make it up. 🙄 Edit: I again contacted the CEO’s office to see what they had to see about this latest revelation. They offered me money!!

Now … it gets interesting as I started receiving daily calls on my mobile again about, guess what, making a claim. As the number was not withheld each time I reported it to Ofcom. I ended up phoning Ofcom, they weren’t interested in where my number had been obtained but I no longer receive these calls. Clearly the former Aviva employee was still selling my personal details.

Thanks slowoldgit. 😀

Scintillating reading:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-challenged-an-ombudsman-decision

Can I just pick up on this? My insurance company at the time, Aviva, yes that’s right Aviva, had a member of staff pass on my personal details and I was inundated with calls daily for a year. I took this up to CEO level at Aviva and then lodged a formal complaint with the Financial Ombudsman that my details had been passed on/sold. Nobody was interested. I also spoke to the ICO where I received mixed advice.

Anyone remember Aviva for being in the national news for customers personal information being sold? You couldn’t make it up. Edit: I again contacted the CEO’s office to see what they had to see about this latest revelation. They offered me money!!

Now … it gets interesting as I started receiving daily calls on my mobile again about, guess what, making a claim. As the number was not withheld each time I reported it to Ofcom. I ended up phoning Ofcom, they weren’t interested in where my number had been obtained but I no longer receive these calls. Clearly the former Aviva employee was still selling my personal details.

I work in insurance, and there would be absolute hell to pay if someone here was found leaking information to a 3rd party!

BB – it made the news at the time. Aviva seem to have wriggled.

BoardinBob – the mistake that so many companies make is showing arrogance towards its customers. The day after the accident was when the calls started. Every caller had a Northern accent, guess where Aviva Insurance are based??

where Aviva Insurance are based

Norwich.

Referral fees were made illegal by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 which became effective 1/4/13. This is regulated by the FCA who generally take a very dim view of it with fines being levied at companies and individuals.

It is entirely possible that the ombudsman wasn’t interested as it’s not in their remit.

With regard to the OP, if it is an admission of liability and an offer of compensation then it is likely from the third party’s insurer direct. This is not uncommon these days as they look to manage the claim thus reducing legal costs and obscene charges from credit hire companies regarding temporary replacement vehicles. I always find it intriguing that so many do this without any formal medical evidence – that said, it generally means their first offer is not their best. 😉

Norwich.

[/s]

Manchester.

Manchester.

……. so the the Midlands? 😉

Guys – there’s enough bloomin’ Northerners on here so I know that accent when I hear it. 😉

http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2328717/police-investigation-after-aviva-data-leak

It happened.

With regard to the OP, if it is an admission of liability and an offer of compensation then it is likely from the third party’s insurer direct. This is not uncommon these days as they look to manage the claim thus reducing legal costs and obscene charges from credit hire companies regarding temporary replacement vehicles. I always find it intriguing that so many do this without any formal medical evidence – that said, it generally means their first offer is not their best.

She spoke to her insurers again earlier and they seem to suggest that it is the other insurance company or an ‘official’ claims company related to them, rather than an ambulance chaser, and they’re simply trying to get in early to get a ‘cheap’ settlement. Makes sense, if it was an ambulance chaser they wouldn’t be making a cheap offer but instead I’d have thought would be suggesting far bigger numbers and offering to represent her.

Why though – we still don’t really know. Through her insurance we now know that the other party claims to have very little recollection, much the same as my mum – just driving along in horrible conditions, a car approaching, and then clipping the other car. Likewise the witness, couldn’t say who crossed the white line or why. But certainly seems that on the evidence provided the police aren’t interested in investigating further / apportioning blame / prosecuting on that basis; and the ins cos are basically saying they’ll carry their share of each other’s parties claims because they don’t have any reason to do otherwise.

So from my mum’s PoV, good and bad. Good in that she doesn’t have two other people saying that it was her fault; bad in that they can’t say that the other person caused it so it might still have been – which is the main issue to her, because she’s worried that after 55 years of driving is she still competent?

theotherjonv – you’ll never get to the truth I’m afraid. Be relieved and pleased that your Mum is OK. Has she actually mentioned anything about getting back behind the wheel or has this totally knocked her confidence?

Fwiw I did actually delicately suggest to my late father that perhaps he shouldn’t continue driving and fortunately he agreed. A person obviously doesn’t want to lose their independence let alone their reliance on others including yourself.

It’s tough for all.

Is the original question why do the insurance company consider themselves liable when the police are not pressing charges?

Shirley police are only interested if driver was criminally* at fault (and even then sometimes it has to be very criminally before they’re bothered) doesn’t mean that 1 party isn’t liable for the accident and subsequent payout.

*I think I shall make this my word of the day

cinnamon_girl – Member

Norwich.

Manchester
[/quote]

Well their Head Office and Registered Office are both the same and in London. Their UK operational H.O. is in Surrey Street, Norwich – or it was when I was there 4 months ago – being the old Norwich Union H.O. (their previous trading name).

They certainly did have an issue as in the article linked to above – not sure if anyone can actually read it though in view of the publishers. 2 staff from London were sacked and are being prosecuted for (allegedly) passing on information to claims management co’s. As far as I can tell, the investigation is ongoing which is probably to also weed out the claims managers responsible as they too are governed by the legislation.

FWIW, I had a call about my injuries from an accident that hadn’t even been reported to either insurance co – the only place the info could have come from is the NHS or the Police. 😕

she’s worried that after 55 years of driving is she still competent?

tell her to have a few driving lessons! it will answer that question, she’ll probably learn a fair bit, and in any case would’ve been a useful refresher even pre-crash.

Also tell her to get a modded up Corsa. That boosts anyone’s confidence.

theotherjonv – you’ll never get to the truth I’m afraid. Be relieved and pleased that your Mum is OK. Has she actually mentioned anything about getting back behind the wheel or has this totally knocked her confidence?

She feels that she wants to get back behind the wheel because in her mind she remains a good enough driver (even if she potters around like a grandmother) and to not be mobile, and living in the sticks, would be a substantial change to her lifestyle. My dad’s still alive too (and they’re together) and is also a car owner and driver, but he still does some part time consultancies so won’t be around at her beck and call.

But without a clear (to her) understanding of what caused it, she’s worried that it could have been her, which then leads to whether her perception of being a sufficiently good driver is misjudged. But the fact that neither of the other parties is blaming her, and that the ins cos seem to think it was ‘one of those things’ is making her feel happier.

To me being more suspicious – if anything the fact that the other party hasn’t blamed her, makes me wonder whether they know a bit more about it than their statement might suggest. It was two youngish girls in her dad’s car, by all accounts, they can’t say what speed they were doing (‘between 20 and 40’)…… makes me wonder if the fact that no-one’s pointing at them makes them more relieved than my mum is.

She needs to speak to her insurer. She might be getting a firm offer to fix everything and tie it up; her insurance might be doing the same to the other party.

She needs to speak to her insurer

She is – she certainly rejected their offer last night that ‘had to be sorted quickly’ until she’d had chance to speak to her insurer today.

I had an odd call yesterday, instead of the usual “you have had an accident x years ago” they began the call “we notice that there is an outstanding section 4 blah blah blah against your insurance records” or something along those lines which to me suggests that the national insurance database records all of the details and a section 4 must be a claim and that on my records it was unfulfilled as i hadnt claimed.

Pretty shoddy use of the NID and more reason to just lie to insurers to get the best deal for yourself that you can, they are all a bunch of crooks, the industry is rotten to the core, why feed them with your honesty i say!

Oh and if she accepts say £2000 now then thats it! no more claims, case closed, end off, even if your leg falls off next week!

I always remember Chris Evans saying “always settle out of court” as once you do, then thats that, no further recoup can be made. Hence why OOC settlements are often marginally more than what may be initially acheived in court

bland – Member
I had an odd call yesterday, instead of the usual “you have had an accident x years ago” they began the call “we notice that there is an outstanding section 4 blah blah blah against your insurance records” or something along those lines which to me suggests that the national insurance database records all of the details and a section 4 must be a claim and that on my records it was unfulfilled as i hadnt claimed.

Pretty shoddy use of the NID and more reason to just lie to insurers to get the best deal for yourself that you can, they are all a bunch of crooks, the industry is rotten to the core, why feed them with your honesty i say!

Because lying to insurers is a criminal offence?

So; she’s had another call today – their claims manager person is ‘disappointed’ that she is unwilling to accept his offer to settle, because ‘it’s in her best interests to settle quickly and avoid the hassles of lengthy doctor exams, court appearances, and the like’

I haven’t spoken to this bloke, but my sister now has, and neither of us like him. He’s basically doing the same as a cheap double glazing salesman, with offers that have to be agreed to tonight. Quite shoddy pressuring a 72 year old in this way.

However – another clarification please from the more informed? He has said that if it goes to court and a judge rules on the extent of injury, then because she’s 50% to blame then she’ll only get 50% of the settlement. Hence his offer of X is actually worth 2X as a court settlement.

Is that right? Who says she’s 50% to blame – have the ins cos agreed that between themselves already? And if that part’s right, why does she only get 50%. If you write off a car in a 50/50 fault accident, they don’t give you half of the car’s value, so why’s it different?

I know the above now sounds like being greedy, I assure you it isn’t. But there’s a growing sense of annoyance about the high pressure sales tactics being used, and if he’s telling fibs about the process, then we either want to complain about his approach to the relevant people, or call his bluff on it directly.

It won’t go to court – it’s in neither side’s interest (financially speaking).

He is employed to bring these matters to a swift and cost effective solution so, his manner aside, he’s doing his job. I’d simply respond on the basis that your mum is injured, the extent of which (physically or psychologically speaking) isn’t known yet so it would be wrong to agree a settlement this soon after the accident. Perhaps suggest a time frame in which you can reasonably ascertain the true picture – this may necessitate a medical check but these things are invariably in the ‘victim’s’ favour. Perhaps ask, if it’s not been raised already, if they would like to provide a hire car whilst she settles her damage claim and sources a replacement vehicle. I’m guessing they’ll not want her to be persuaded down the credit hire route.

I would also make her insurers aware of their approach as this may assist them in recouping their losses which will go some way to reducing the impact on your mum’s insurance going forward. It really does seem like they are admitting liability without simply saying it.

Johnv – My experience earlier this year was that, although I felt fine (although shaken) after my accident, about 3 days later I started getting a lot of pain in my neck. I’d always been very sceptical of ‘whiplash’ but when you’ve got it it bloody hurts!

It got worse over a period of about a week. I saw doc etc. It was bad enough to make working at a computer (ie work) uncomfortable, riding my roadbike was impossible! I got referred for physio via the claims consultant working for my insurers. Bill over about 6 weeks of physio was £450 (physio definitely helped, but was even more painful during!). Still some niggles but the exercises I was given help.

So I certainly wouldn’t settle yet, they are obviously trying to get it done early to avoid anything like the above.

Oh, I settled today, 6 months after the accident (other party took responsibility after driving into the side of me when I was going round a roundabout, wrote off car).

The car’s a write off (she was cut out!) and her insurance has already settled a fair value on the car, so she can’t get a hire car on any terms, as according to the ins co she can buy a new car instead. It’s purely the ‘personal damages’ that are being discussed now.

OP, I’m an insurance lawyer. I don’t deal strictly with personal injury claims, but I’ve been around long enough to know how it works.

Any damages (i.e compensation) will be assessed by the court with reference to the severity of the injuries and essentially a ‘tariff’ of recommended scales, based on previous cases. Insurers use a system that you plug in the symptoms and it’ll give you a range of figures.

If liability is apportioned between the parties, then what’ll happen is if your mother is found to be 50% responsible for the accident then, yes, any damages would be likely to be reduced to reflect this. The judge wouldn’t be ruling on the extent of injury per se, rather the extent of liability of the respective parties.

The insurers can agree liability in respect of the insured losses – i.e. the damage to the vehicles, but if they do so without reference to your mother and do so in such a way as the claim is settled ‘in full and final’ then they may prevent her from bringing a claim for injury.

It depends what you (she) wants to do. If she does want to claim for injury, then it is best to tell all parties that at the outset, including your own insurers. If the two insurers can’t agree then what usually happens is they instruct their panel solicitors to sue the other insurer for the insured loss. If you/she isn’t fussed, then tell them you’re not making a claim and to leave you alone.