3 car pile up, who is liable?

• 

  IIGnomeII on 11/09/2014 - 16:20

  The car that hits you from behind is at fault.

  The law states that you have to leave enough room between you and the car in front. However they can overrule this if the car two cars back was flying and managed to push the car behind you into you.

  Been through this before with a 3 car pileup in the wet, I ran into someone and the person behind ran into me.

  EDIT!
  By the sounds of it you just have third party insurance?
  The insurance agency for the car that hit you should be admitting fault unless police (if brought in) determined that there was enough distance left and the car at the rear is at fault for both.

  Little bit of info
  http://www.racq.com.au/membership/member_services_and_advice…

  • 

    Kkuba on 11/09/2014 - 16:27

    No, I have full comprehensive insurance. But I still do not get choice of repairer, that is the only reason why I want to avoid going through them.

    Yes, that's what I thought, but they are not admitting liability. So if you (and I) are correct, AND I did not have any insurance, then it would have to begin legal proceedings, yes?

    EDIT: clarity

    • 

      IIGnomeII on 11/09/2014 - 16:29

      +1

      In that case I would put it through AAMI so that they do the run around and it may cost you less in the end.

      Essentially Zurich is trying to get out of having to pay the repair cost, was a police report taken?

    • 

      Jam0864 on 11/09/2014 - 16:30

      +2

      Why do you pay for insurance if not to use it?

      • 

        Kkuba on 11/09/2014 - 16:38

        +1

        I need it for when I am at fault and need to make a claim.

      • 

        Azn310 on 13/09/2014 - 13:15

        @she_spools_180: if this was the case, maybe you should only get third part fire theft?

      • 

        Kkuba on 15/09/2014 - 07:21

        @Azn310:

        But then my car isn't covered for the repairs.

        And car is covered for an agreed value of 45k, and I'm a good driver, but I'm not that good! /s

    • 

      goraygo on 13/09/2014 - 10:11

      +1

      You should claim them thru AAMI. Because they will look after the claims and legality for you. They even will argue on behalf of you, so you don't need to get involved.

      Btw, if you don't like AAMI with no choice of repairer, why still with them?

      • 

        Kkuba on 15/09/2014 - 07:23

        @goraygo

        See my response to this question below, written as a response to user: sam-1966

  • 

    Noblejoker on 12/09/2014 - 09:55

    +4

    I work in the industry and can tell you that is not correct
    From the description the Falcon caused the incident and would be at fault
    The navara did nothing wrong and shouldn't pay for OP damage

    The trick comes, as you say, in having all the parties agree on the details
    That's where having the cops attend and make a report is important - all insurers can call for the police report as irrefutable facts
    helps if guilty party is also charged - but not essential

    I expect QBE will coem back and admit liability
    However you have given yourself all the hassles by not going through your insurer AAMI
    Part of what you pay for is to have them handle this sort of thing for you - not just when it's your fault
    If you don't rust AAMI to repair you car then choose another insurer - the extra $50 or whatever p.a. removes these headaches
    We all love a bargain but quality>price sometimes

• 

  Kevan2 on 11/09/2014 - 16:26

  Talk to AAMI they will do work as it was not your fault you should not loose out.
  Did anyone admit liability.

  There may be proportionate share of blame. But if you were travelling safe distance and you were as you did not hit car in front you have room to move.

  Were Police called due to damage size.

  I always advise insurance company even if the dingle was caused by and repaired paid by other party ie her dad. This keeps record and no back claim exclusion if another accident occurred and repaired identified as exclusion for possible next claim. Insurance companies want to make money by fees in and lower outgoes claims, staff,

  Good luck on this

  • 

    Kkuba on 11/09/2014 - 16:37

    -2

    I did contact AAMI to go through them, and made a claim, they gave me all the instructions, and said I was not at all liable, and would not be charged any excess. But then a few hours later I decided to pursue the alternative way - where I get my choice of repairer. So as it stand currently, I am just stalling it will AAMI, with no issue. They do not know what I am up to in the background at this point, but I have them on stand-by in case it all falls through.

    Police were not called, not while I was there at least, but the falcon was not drivable, so it would have been towed, so there would be some record of it.

    • 

      whooah1979 on 11/09/2014 - 17:31

      -6

      the first thing you should have done in this situation was to call an ambulance then the police. they would have recorded this incident and any claims much easier to deal with.

      edit
      i spend a lot of time on the roads. always report accident at the nearest police station and get an event number. there are to many liars on the roads so don't trust anybody when they say it's their fault.

      • 

        GnarlyKnuckles on 11/09/2014 - 20:47

        +12

        You should never call an ambulance, unless someone actually needs one. The function of ambulances is not to facilitate the generation of some type of official record, for insurance purposes; ambulances are to provide emergency medical treatment, and rapid transport to hospital. Calling an ambulance when no one actually needs one may mean that it takes longer for an ambulance to get to someone somewhere else, who actually does need one.
        It is frankly irresponsible to suggest that an ambulance should have been called just to facilitate an official record of the accident, and I find it odd that peeps "plussed" the post!

      • 

        whooah1979 on 11/09/2014 - 21:09

        @GnarlyKnuckles:

        who is to say that any of the parties involved with op's incident wasn't injured? were any of the people present medically trained to assess the driver and occupants? injures like whiplash, cheat and abdominal injuries caused by seat belt can cause complications days or weeks after an incident.

        it's better to safe then sorry.

      • 

        GnarlyKnuckles on 11/09/2014 - 22:27

        @whooah1979: "Whiplash" does not warrant the calling of an ambulance, I'm not sure what "cheat" is, and as for some complication that crops up "days or weeks" after the event, I can't see the relevance of an ambulance at the time of the event to that situation.
        And who would pay for this ambulance, when it got there and they asked who had called it/why, and you said you'd called it simply because its "better to be safe than sorry"?
        There is actually logical limits on the phrase "better to be safe than sorry"; if there wasn't no one would ever do anything that entailed even the slightest bit of risk.
        It would not be good if while you were calling an ambulance for someone that didn't actually need it, in order to be "better safe than sorry", someone else was having a heart attack and it took them vital extra minutes to be attended to by an ambulance, because of the one you had called unnecessarily.
        You seem to be suggesting that an ambulance should be called to every accident that occurs, unless a paramedic or doctor happens to be present to assess everyone. That is silly. Ambulances should only be used in the case of an emergency.

      • 

        whooah1979 on 12/09/2014 - 00:50

        -2

        @GnarlyKnuckles:

        A three car pile up where one of them may have need to be towed. It's very likely that somebody may have been injured. it's up to the people present at the incident to decide who they want to call. If they don't want to call then that is up to them. if it looks bad then chances are that a spectacular would make the call.

        you wouldn't call others may. let's just leave it at that.

      • 

        Kkuba on 12/09/2014 - 09:26

        Thanks for all the responses. Definitely need to consider this next time. I think at least a police report, as suggested, at a police station would be appropriate.

        Can't figure out why, or to which part of my response I was down-voted. Anyone care to elaborate?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 12/09/2014 - 16:40

        -1

        @GnarlyKnuckles: Only those involved are in a position to determine whether whiplash or any other "minor" injury warrants an ambulance Gnarly. Seemingly minor injuries can escalate, and an injured person may not even be aware of their unjuries. Any decent hit from behind is almost always worthy of an ambulance.

        Seems you've also missed the advertising in regard to heart attack and strokes which say if in doubt call an ambulance, don't wait for the "emergency".

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 12/09/2014 - 16:57

        -1

        @she_spools_180: Simple answer is that it's OzB, but possibly because you don't know the road rules which require you to report any road accident where injury or damage occurs involving a third party. Failure to do so is an offence. In any case it's in your own interests to do just that. Good luck.

• 

  Kevan2 on 11/09/2014 - 16:32

  You guys beat me to it.

  I still would talk to insurer.

  Also Ring fault insurance coy, be nice, as the A/H driver is blaming the cars in front of him/her.
  You clearly recall situation and explain it again and again.

  Insurance companies earn $1,000,000 hour and can afford to be nasty as we mortals earn $peanuts

  Goodluck

• 

  kingsville on 11/09/2014 - 16:42

  +2

  From the RACQ link provided above, the Falcon is at fault so QBE should 'fess up.

  "In 3 or more car pile-ups, it is necessary to determine whether the car immediately behind hit first or whether it had stopped in time and was pushed by the car behind it. If the latter case can be clearly determined then the car at the rear is responsible."

  • 

    GnarlyKnuckles on 11/09/2014 - 20:51

    Good post kings, this is really the only logical way to determine fault, in this case; the OP states the car directly behind had (responsibly) left enough room to stop, and did stop. So the OP and the Navara both need to state this to the ute's insurance company, who should then concede liability (i.e. even if the ute tries to deny it, it's two independent witnesses against one).

• 

  rambutann on 11/09/2014 - 16:44

  +4

  I thought it was obvious that it was the falcons fault as they clearly did not leave enough room between him and the car in front of him..

  • 

    GnarlyKnuckles on 11/09/2014 - 20:53

    Well said/agreed.

• 

  Aust on 11/09/2014 - 17:16

  +2

  QBE into Zurich, Zurich into AAMI, QBE is at fault. Send your letter of demand to them with a copy of the letter you should get from Zurich declining liability.

• 

  onetrickpony on 11/09/2014 - 18:53

  Had a similar accident a few years ago. Truck hit a car behind me, the car was pushed up the road and crashed into mine. I was insured with AAMI and rang them and gave them the rego of the car. They asked me if the car caused the accident to occur, when I told them the truck caused the accident, they had no further interest in the car, and asked me to get the truck rego or I would have to pay the excess.

  Previous to that I had always thought it was whoever hit my car. Gave them all the info, car was well repaired, no excess to pay.

  • 

    aman00024 on 14/04/2018 - 19:17

    Thank you!

• 

  rigby75 on 12/09/2014 - 07:27

  I was the back car and pushed the car infront into the one in front and so on, 5 cars in total involved. As the rear car I was responsible for all damages and fined for traveling to close to the vehicle infront to stop. My insurance company took care of it all.

  • 

    IIGnomeII on 12/09/2014 - 09:38

    +4

    5 cars?? How fast were you going??
    … or were you in a cement truck…

• 

  kaybentley on 12/09/2014 - 07:33

  Sorry to go off track of this topic. We had an accident recently (3 weeks ago) where a removalist truck that was parked on the footpath came out and hit us. The police were called because the driver of the truck was arguing that we were at fault but when we called to get an event number they said because nobody died or was likely to die they do not give it an event number. Our car (only done 9,000kms) is a write off and the driver of the removalist truck is denying he was at fault. Thankfully we have insurance. Is it correct that they don't have to give an event number? We are in New South Wales. Thanks

  • 

    IIGnomeII on 12/09/2014 - 09:34

    I would have thought that there would be some form of a case number but the last time I had to get the police involved in an accident was about 10 years ago so I am not too sure.

    Best to call your local police station and ask them.

• 

  sam-1966 on 12/09/2014 - 07:34

  +3

  OP, may I ask why you continue to have your insurance with AAMI as you are clearly worried about claiming through them in case of an accident? Wouldn't it be better to change your insurer to one you would be happier with?

  • 

    Kkuba on 12/09/2014 - 09:37

    +1

    Probably, and I have already rung around a few insurance providers, since the accident to ask for a quote. I will fully consider a change after all of this settles down.

    But it is a toss-up for me, between paying 60-90% on top of my premium with an insurer who give me a choice of repairer, or to stick with who I am.

    To give you an idea, I have maxed out my excess (using their flexi-premium) to minimise my premium. Given my own assessment of my driving ability/risk of accident, I considered this to be the best strategy. And this is why going with another company will increase my premium so much, as stated above. So, therefore, I consider the risk of an at-fault claim to be very low.

    Even in the event of an at-fault claim (where likely or unlikely), having the car repaired by an AAMI approved repairer is probably not that bad (and ultimately it is "how bad" they are that will influence my decision to change insurer). And if I do have a choice of repairer, as I do in this case, then I will pursue that avenue. So, no, I am not "worried" as you say, just taking on one of my other options.

    EDIT: Put it this way: If I am 97% happy with AAMI, would it be worth my while to go with someone I am 100% happy with, and pay an extra 90% on top of my premium? I have done the cost-benefit, and this was the solution I decided was best (so far).

• 

  frente69 on 12/09/2014 - 08:32

  +1

  Surely AAMI don't care who you get your car fixed through (as long as they are approved) if they don't have to foot the bill? You should ask them if you can pick the repairer as it's no skin off their nose.

  • 

    Kkuba on 12/09/2014 - 09:45

    They told me if I wanted to use my own repairer, I have to bring a quote from them, and a quote from an AAMI approved repairer along to the assessment centre. Assessor will then decide which one AAMI will pay for.

    Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that they will always go for their own one, which coincidentally seem to always be the cheapest one. As you suggest, it would seem they would not care which one they go for, as they are not footing the bill. Perhaps then it just comes down to "lifetime warranty on repairs" they might be more comfortable going with their own one, in case anything goes wrong down the track, as they probably have a "direct line" to this repairer. But that is just me speculating.

    Initially, I contacted RJP to get a quote as my 'other' quote for AAMI, and they refused, as they said their quotes are always more expensive and they have never won the business, and so it would be a waste of time for them.

  • 

    Noblejoker on 12/09/2014 - 10:03

    +1

    most insurers offer a repair warranty, some a lifetime repair warranty
    Meaning if they fix your car and you show the repairs weren't right in later years they re-repair
    The insurer would want the original repairer to fix their work and thus they prefer to give to smashies they have binding contracts with as a measure of protection that they do good work and will do the warranty repair in future.
    If they allow you to use your own repairer they lose this advantage - even if they recover the initial cost they may not recover a future warranty repair and associated costs.

    The company I work with does not lock you in to preferred repairer - we prefer customers to have a choice
    But there is some justification for it I guess

    Of course they also make preferred arrangements to keep costs down and there may be contractual benefits and discounts from preferred repairers.
    This can sound dodgy but in reality all big businesses negotiate preferred supplier arrangements - try selling something to Coles or Maccas

• 

  mattyman on 12/09/2014 - 09:14

  +2

  Everyone is saying that the car that hit you is at fault. I had a friend that this happened to a few years ago. He was in the middle car. As he had stopped before the getting hit from behind the car that hit him was liable for damages to my friend's car and the car that my friend was pushed into.

  • 

    IIGnomeII on 12/09/2014 - 09:37

    I think this is the grey area where if there a 3 cars and the middle car has not left enough distance to the car in front and gets rear ended pushing them into the car in front then they can be liable.

    The flip side of this is if there are 3 cars, middle car rear ends front and the rear car rear ends the middle then each driver is responsible for the car they hit.

• 

  kmwa on 12/09/2014 - 13:14

  I witnessed a 3 car pile-up at red traffic lights last year.
  I was walking and heard a bang, looked up to see the middle car being pushed into the front car which had stopped at the lights.
  I left a business card with the driver of the front car.
  I was later contacted by the Insurance Commission of WA and provided a statement.
  Presumably the driver of the rear car (who was responsible for the damage to middle and front cars) or his insurance company was trying to claim that he wasn't responsible for damage to the front car.
  So if you're involved in a pile-up, try to get witness names and addresses.
  On the business of police reports, in WA you have to call the police if someone get hurt or if more than $3000 damage is caused to vehicles. If less than that, you need to visit a police station and file a report there to get a reference number to give to your insurance company.

• 

  peteru on 12/09/2014 - 15:25

  Police involvement would have been good, to get a definitive statement. In NSW they will issue fines / demerit points to drivers at fault, so that's easy.

  However, the rule of thumb here is pretty simple. Any car that was stationary at the time of the accident (and not positioned in an obviously unsafe place) is not at fault. So, if this was an accident with 5 cars stopped in a traffic jam and a 6th car rammed the last car causing all other cars to collide, only the driver in the 6th car is at fault. And up for a pretty hefty repair bill for all 6 cars.

• 

  whatthecrappin on 13/09/2014 - 10:33

  +1

  I was in a similar situation, but I was the car in the middle. As I was stationary (for a good 3-5 secs). I was looking at the rear view mirror as I KNEW the car behind me wasnt going to stop

  I gave my details to the driver in front - but I never paid anything insurance wise. The car that pushed me paid for all damage. Note that I had to state I was stationary

• 

  MondaySleeper on 13/09/2014 - 13:46

  Interesting thread and informative as well. Just a question -

  If the middle car has the DashCam fitted and he was able to stop and stationary for 1-2 sec but the one behind him hit and that caused the middle car to hit the front one. Lets say all these events are captured on DashCam (or at least that the middle car was able to stop) - will that be enough proof?

  Sab

• 

  Noblejoker on 16/09/2014 - 12:32

  For those saying that the middle car is at fault - sorry no
  Insurance works on what is called 'proximate cause'
  So rather than Direct Cause which is what directly caused damage - ie car 2 which hit car 1
  Proximate Cause is what really caused the impact - which is car 3 hitting car 2 which hit car 1

  When 3 goes into 2 goes into 1 it is straightforward
  if car 3 doesn't hit car 2, car 2 would not have hit car 1
  Regardless of how big the gap left was Car 2 wouldn't have hit if not rear ended by car 3 - car 3 is the proximate cause

  Now what gets really tricky is when there is an accident - say 1 into 2 or 2 into 1 and car 3 comes along and hits one/both
  Often 1 and 2 dispute whose fault original collision is and 3 comes along, can't avoid collision and doesn't know who to blame etc
  That is what we like to call a ClusterF :)