Car Insurance Decided 50/50 Split for Crash?

Lturk182 on 28/03/2017 - 17:45
Last edited 31/03/2017 - 17:57

So few months back i was in a car accident. At a roundabout, driving straight through the roundabout using the right hand lane, when i was approaching the exit another car to my left decided to join. I did actually see the car but assumed that car was going to use the same exit as me. Well we crashed and now my insurance company is saying its a 50/50 split where we both pay the excess and each insurance company will pay for their own clients car.

I personally think this is wrong as i believe i had right of way and was about to exit when the crash occurred so i believe it should be 100% fault to the third party.

So just wondering what others think ? and should i lodge a complaint with my insurance company and take things further or just accept the 50/50 split.

  • Have already received my car back from the repairer and so far haven't paid any excess yet as they took awhile to reach a decision *

Car crash

Update: 30/03/17 8:30pm
third party are now claiming i entered the roundabout with them and that i changed lanes and crashed into them!!!!???
link to my comment

Update 31/03/17 5:20pm
Now have all the facts
Worthless insurance company, third party look to be telling truth
Link to my comment with third party photos and statement

Automotive

Comments

  • simmos on 29/03/2017 - 13:05

    Any witness(es)?

    • turk182 on 29/03/2017 - 13:22

      the third party had a witness but was a conflicting report as they put my location on the roundabout at a different exit, which didn't make sense

  • turk182 on 29/03/2017 - 13:25
    +5

    seems to be overwhelming support to at least contest the decision. so i called up today and they told me the first step is to lodge a complaint and they will get back to me within 3 business days. futher down the track i will have the ability to request all documents they have which led to their decision

    • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2017 - 08:04

      Good luck.

  • Noblejoker on 29/03/2017 - 13:36
    +2

    All the debate above is valid - but slightly irrelevant
    Your insurance company is only worried about whether they can recover
    They have to be able to prove the other side is at fault
    If the liability is not clear - and it is not - then the other insurer is not going to pay your insurer their money back
    If your insurer can't recover then they charge you your excess - done

    If you want to discuss anything I would be chasing my No Claim Bonus
    If you have an At Fault claim you likely lose 2 years NCB meaning your premium goes up for 2 years
    Ask your insurer to agree it isn't your fault so you don't lose NCB at next renewal
    Example - if you paid $800 this year you would pay $1200 next year and $1000 year after - if you dont have another claim
    So extra cost for lose of NCB could easily be more than your excess

  • HeWhoKnows on 29/03/2017 - 17:31

    It no longer matters if you are right or wrong and it doesn't matter what anyone says here…..
    This is the latest way insurance companies are either avoiding their obligations or forcing parties to pay an excess when in fact they shouldn't.
    Unfortunately its becoming VERY COMMON practice!
    Not sure what you can do.
    If you firmly believe you are not at fault then maybe take it up with the insurance ombudsman or your motoring organization if you are a member

  • anonymous01 on 30/03/2017 - 09:25

    Dear OP, do you mind me asking what insurance you are with and what insurance is the other driver with? If you have both same insurance company, or both insurances are owned by same parent company, they might be trying to rip you off. Both of you paying FULL premium?? If they are splitting it 50/50, shouldn't the excess be also 50/50??? Just saying, take them to court.

  • bqjt on 30/03/2017 - 09:35
    +1

    Someone did this to me recently in Melbourne and I honked the life out of them. Some folks really need to go back to learning to drive properly and refer to the rule book when in doubt. Get back to your insurance company and be firm. It is not your fault. Not giving way to a vehicle already in the roundabout is completely beating the purpose of a roundabout and is like going on a red light!

  • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2017 - 09:57

    I don't know what state you're in but I would start by looking up actual laws about giving way at roundabouts to use as ammo

    If your insurance truly does suck, don't pay the excess and file against the other party's policy claim directly with their insurance

    If their insurance won't play ball either be prepared to make a legal fight yourself against the 3rd party directly (who will then forward it to their insurance to fight for him, but technically insurances are not a party to the claim, they just represent, so you got to go after the 3rd party direct) . Start with a registered letter of demand and go to a community legal centre to get some free legal advice on taking it further

  • ipiok on 30/03/2017 - 10:06

    Provided you were indicating to exit the roundabout, I don't see how any blame could be placed on you.

    • Mrbean007 on 30/03/2017 - 10:09

      Even if he didn't indicate providing he should his still in the right as the car should have gave way

      The insurance company is just trying to milk it from both parties as suggested maybe it's the same insurance company

      Had a friend in a similar position at a set of lights insurance company said same thing 50/50 my mate was in the right and said i there me or him after fighting it he got paid out without going to court because the insurance company new they wouldn't win it :)

      • callum9999 on 30/03/2017 - 14:11
        +1

        It seems like I'm in the wrong, but having learnt to drive in the UK there's no way I'd give way to a car in the right hand lane not indicating to leave it. What's the point in having two lanes at all if I can't get on the left hand lane when a car is in the right hand lane?

    • ipiok on 30/03/2017 - 16:31

      I think some people on here need to have a little read of this: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/roundabou…

  • holisticboy on 30/03/2017 - 10:14

    I always thought with road laws that you should only enter a roundabout if its clear to your right, regardless of someones indicator usage?

    • Herbse on 30/03/2017 - 10:18

      Just no

    • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 10:33
      +1

      No, the rule is that you must give way to cars already on the roundabout.

      • holisticboy on 30/03/2017 - 10:42
        +2

        Which is basically what I am saying. You cannot enter a roundabout if its not clear to do so (e.g. if there is no car about to hit you). I've heard in the past where people got hit because the other person used incorrect indicators, but insurance would just pull em up on the fact that no matter what the indicator stated, the roundabout would still not be clear to proceed.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 10:51

          The key point is that it doesn't matter if it's clear to your right or not as long as there are no cars already on the roundabout.

          And you are right that you need to give way regardless of indicators.

      • callum9999 on 30/03/2017 - 14:13

        How does that rule reconcile with two lanes though? Logically there should only be one if you give way in that scenario.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 15:15
          -5

          It works the same way with 1 or 2 lanes. It just becomes a lot more dangerous and confusing with 2 lanes because a person on the inside lane needs to cross the outside lane to exit the roundabout.

          In this case the person on the outside needed to give way to the person on the inside without actually knowing that person ways exiting. The safest course of action was the outside person to wait until the other car had passed before entering the roundabout but that almost defeats the purpose of having 2 lanes.

        • Cliche Guevara on 30/03/2017 - 16:17

          @Hellfire:

          But the person on the outside did know that the person already in the roundabout was exiting because: "yes definitely had my indicator on after i passed the first exit".

          Also since the person on the outside was going straight through, they would have known they would cross paths with any exiting vehicle, so should definitely not have entered the roundabout.

          IF they had been turning left it would have been ok (although still potentially not legal) to enter the roundabout and stay in the left lane.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 16:55
          -2

          @kiwigene:

          Sigh.

          But the person on the outside did know that the person already in the roundabout was exiting because: "yes definitely had my indicator on after i passed the first exit".

          The first exit is where the outside vehicle entered and would have been partially in front of the inside car. The outside car would have a very difficult view of the inside car's indicator.

          Also since the person on the outside was going straight through, they would have known they would cross paths with any exiting vehicle, so should definitely not have entered the roundabout.

          Yes they should not have entered but they weren't guaranteed to cross the path if the inside car exited at another point.

          IF they had been turning left it would have been ok (although still potentially not legal) to enter the roundabout and stay in the left lane.

          Perfectly legal in this case.

        • Cliche Guevara on 30/03/2017 - 17:09

          @Hellfire:

          The first exit is where the outside vehicle entered and would have been partially in front of the inside car. The outside car would have a very difficult view of the inside car's indicator.

          NO: the inside car would have be using the "left" indicator to exit the roundabout - so would have been in plain view of the outside car.
          Which also makes your next argument incorrect too.

          Yes they should not have entered but they weren't guaranteed to cross the path if the inside car exited at another point.

          Agree with the first part about not entering the roundabout but a "left" indicating car is exiting and would "guarantee" paths would cross.

          Sigh…

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 17:14
          -1

          @kiwigene:

          NO: the inside car would have be using the "left" indicator to exit the roundabout - so would have been in plain view of the outside car.
          Which also makes your next argument incorrect too.

          I'm not sure how you see this is the case.

          The outside car was in the roundabout before the inside car passed the first exit (at which stage he put the indicator on).

          It is very difficult to see the indicator of a car that is slightly behind and to the right. Certainly not in plain view.

        • Cliche Guevara on 30/03/2017 - 17:30

          @Hellfire:

          OP says:

          when i was approaching the exit another car to my left decided to join.

          To me this says the inside car was indicating and would have been visible to outside car.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 17:35

          @kiwigene:

          The inside car only indicated after passing the exit. You've already quoted the OP in this regard.

          At the time the indicator was first on the outside car had already joined and was in front. As you also quoted the OP in saying this occurred as he approached the exit.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 18:24

          @Hellfire:

          It is very difficult to see the indicator of a car that is slightly behind and to the right. Certainly not in plain view.

          There is a general rule of the road that a driver must positively confirm that a manoeuvre is safe before performing it.

          If you can't see that the way is clear when you don't have right of way at an intersection, you can't go.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 18:43
          -3

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          There is a general rule of the road that a driver must positively confirm that a manoeuvre is safe before performing it.

          Pity the OP failed to do that when exiting the roundabout.

          But anyway, my comments were in relation to how dangerous multi-lane roundabouts can be.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 18:56

          @Hellfire:

          Pity the OP failed to do that when exiting the roundabout.

          I knew you'd write that, you just can't let it go.

          The manoeuvre in OP's case was entering the roundabout to proceed straight through it. It was safe for OP to do that but not for the other driver at the moment in which they did. The mere fact that a collision resulted doesn't mean that OP's actions weren't safe, the collision was entirely caused by the other driver's unsafe actions.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 19:07
          -1

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          I knew you'd write that, you just can't let it go.

          You were the one who bought it up. Maybe someone else can't let it go?

          The manoeuvre in OP's case was entering the roundabout to proceed straight through it.

          Convient definitions you are using.

          They both share blame. You've even confirmed it but can't quite bring yourself to say it directly.

          Let me just quote you again in case you've forgotten.

          There is a general rule of the road that a driver must positively confirm that a manoeuvre is safe before performing it.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 19:13

          @Hellfire:

          You were the one who bought it up. Maybe someone else can't let it go?

          I had new information to share. You're rehashing the same argument.

          Convient [sic] definitions you are using.

          I have every right to clarify the language I used. That "general rule" is a concept which applies across various road rules, not a word for word law I was quoting. 🙄

          You haven't convinced anyone but yourself with your absurd argument.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 19:30
          -2

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          You were agreeing with my position and were caught out so you fabricated some excuse.

          You've even backed up my argument so it can hardly be absurd!

        • callum9999 on 31/03/2017 - 12:46

          @Hellfire: Not almost completely, it completely defeats the purpose of a two lane roundabout.

          Which is precisely why I'm so confused as to why virtually every single post says the outside lane must give way to non indicating cars on the inside lane. Either you're all wrong, or the law seems to make no sense at all.

          In the UK in that scenario you would switch the indicator to left just as you get to the exit before you want to leave (I.e. Any car about to join the outside lane could clearly see you're about to cross through their lane so they shouldn't join the roundabout). It's only dangerous if people don't indicate properly (and I'd be reasonably sure if you doesn't indicate in the OPs scenario you'd be judged at fault).

        • McFly on 31/03/2017 - 14:51

          @callum9999:

          It's only dangerous if people don't indicate properly enter the roundabout in front of someone already in the roundabout who is heading towards them.

        • callum9999 on 31/03/2017 - 15:30

          @McFly: Fascinating, but not relevant for either my scenario or the OPs. Unless you're another one who thinks the two lanes are just decorative and only one lane can be used at a time?

        • smartazz104 on 01/04/2017 - 20:25

          | Yes they should not have entered but they weren't guaranteed to cross the path if the inside car exited at another point.

          Given that OP wasn't indicating left, what other possible exit point could they have exited at?

        • McFly on 02/04/2017 - 07:30

          @callum9999:

          not relevant for either my scenario or the OPs

          Yes it is, because the other car probably should not have entered the roundabout at that time as the OP was already on the roundabout and had right of way.

        • callum9999 on 02/04/2017 - 15:12

          @McFly: Did you read my post properly? The entire point of it was asking if one car has unrestricted right of way over the entire roundabout, why on Earth are there two lanes?

          Using that logic, only one of the lanes are able to be used at a time (well, I guess you could enter into the outside lane just after a car has passed you on the inside, but you could do the same with one lane anyway) - so why not just have one? Either the regulations are stupid or the road planners are idiots from what I can make of this.

  • Domingo on 30/03/2017 - 10:18
    +3

    OP, is the other person's insurance company the same as yours? If so, they may be attempting to recoup extra costs through the collection of 2 excesses.

    My brother was in a similar situation to yours in my car, where a car failed to give way and pulled out in front of him when he was going straight through an intersection. Their insurance company wanted to go 50/50 fault, I only had 3rd party cover at the time (wasn't driving the car often and it was only worth ~4k). We submitted a series of photos and diagrams similar to yours to the insurance company and indicated that if the insurance company didn't take responsibility for repairing my car, we would request the police to charge the other driver with failing to give way in order to prove fault. The response from the insurance company was that they would cover costs for both repairs as their driver was at fault.

  • ankor on 30/03/2017 - 10:18
    +2

    You should name and shame the insurer on social media to bring this to their attention and that may assist in the resolution of your claim.

    They usually have departments that deal with bad press such as this. It is obvious that the other person who is handling your claim has made a silly mistake.

    That person just need some extra training and a lot of his heartache and frustration could have been easily avoided.

  • weezlebub on 30/03/2017 - 11:21
    -8

    Don't even bother, Australian law states that if you're in the car, with the ignition on, you're automatically at fault for 10%

    This is intentionally there, so that both insurance companies can claim the excess and make as much profit as possible

    The only time that this isn't relevant / not pursued is if you don't have your own insurance and they're at fault (parked at a set of traffic lights), where their insurance company generally wont bother chasing you for 10%

    Their policy has their wording for exactly these situations …

    BUT … if you put through a complaint with the insurance company, then follow it through with the insurance industry ombudsman and attempt to push that through as far as you can, there's a very good chance that they'll waive the excess just to get you to go away (depending on how much your excess is)

    • tomsco on 30/03/2017 - 11:35
      +2

      Don't even bother, Australian law states that if you're in the car, with the ignition on, you're automatically at fault for 10%

      Care to cite that?

      • weezlebub on 30/03/2017 - 12:06
        -4

        Sure, a friend who worked in insurance as an assessor mentioned it while we were drinking about 12 years ago :)

        • tomsco on 30/03/2017 - 12:07
          +3

          So… you can't cite the law?

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 12:38
          +4

          Sure, a friend who worked in insurance as an assessor mentioned it while we were drinking about 12 years ago :)

          Cool story bro!

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 12:59
          +3

          This is about the only thing I could find to contradict the 10% rule:

          http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s03s02s02.php

          Apportionment is not otherwise determined by legislation but instead is dependent upon all the relevant details of the accident. In some cases a person may recover 100% of her or his damages (for example, if the car was stationary and was hit by another car) but the possibility of apportionment must be considered. A person is not 10% at fault simply for being on the road.

        • weezlebub on 30/03/2017 - 13:00

          @tomsco:

          Nope, not without research that i don't have the time or inclination to look into … I'm happy for you to treat it as fake news and move on with your life :)

        • weezlebub on 30/03/2017 - 13:02
          +1

          @Hellfire:
          Very good link though

          Contributory negligence occurs in accidents at intersections where, for example, the driver of the vehicle with right of way may be held 25% responsible. This is because every driver is supposed to drive safely in all circumstances. Thus failure to take reasonable steps to avoid an accident (perhaps because of excessive speed) may lead a court to find that the driver is partly responsible for the accident.

        • weezlebub on 30/03/2017 - 13:04

          @weezlebub:

          Again, purely anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure they work it a little like this:

          Car A - $3,000 damage
          Car B - $2,000 damage

          Car A - 75% at fault
          Car B - 25% at fault

          Car A - responsible for $3,750 damage
          Car B - responsible for $1,250 damage

          Car A - $1,000 excess
          Car B - $1,000 excess

        • Ughhh on 30/03/2017 - 13:10
          +1

          @weezlebub:

          I've made and have helped other people make not at fault claims before, all through their insurance (comprehensive). None of which I or them were deemed to be 10% at fault. No excess paid at all and this is with different insurance companies too.

          If your number above is based on your experience, then only you have been ripped off by your insurance company. Ditch them.

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 19:43

          @Ughhh:

          The 10% is probably a myth that comes from judges apportioning blame to each party. There is case law in the link I provided that quotes 25% blame to a person who was run into by another car who failed to give way. It's called Contributory negligence.

          Insurance companies tend to do things in black or white because they can't make a legal judgement.

      • Daabido on 30/03/2017 - 16:14
        +1

        No he doesn't, but I will. It's from the case of Weezlebub v Reality.

  • benderz on 30/03/2017 - 11:55
    +2

    A few years ago a received a letter from an insurance company claiming I was at fault and demanded the full amount for the other vehicle with a generic legal threat.
    The issue I had was that the other vehicle slammed into the back of me in traffic. I called the insurance company who then advised that their records showed the other driver was at fault and to ignore the demand. I guess they hoped I would get intimidated with the threat and just pay up.

    The insurance company is not there to help but is there to squeeze as much profit out of you as possible, so just keep that in mind when dealing with them.

    Btw you obviously had right of way in the diagram.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2017 - 12:49
    +2

    If scenario was as shown in diagram, do not pay.

    You're not at fault. The other driver is at fault. It's not a hard decision to reach.

    Which insurer? I'd be calling to inform them you're switching insurers as they're not representing your best interest.

  • ows on 30/03/2017 - 13:13

    which insurance company? either dumb or try to squeeze profit if both of you use the same insurance company.

  • j4ck on 30/03/2017 - 13:13

    You're definitely not at fault here. Please let us know how your complaint/escalation goes! All the best!

  • turk182 on 30/03/2017 - 14:32

    insurance is part of the iag group. not sure what company the third party is insured with. im still waiting for the call back

  • megaclix on 30/03/2017 - 15:17

    Just to play devil's advocate. OP, was you doing an appropriate speed?

    There are situations when I have been at a roundabout first, and can see drivers approaching the roundabout from my right at such a speed, that if I did enter the roundabout before them (from a standstill), I would most likely get hit.

    In this case, I suspect one of the drivers approached the roundabout at an excess speed - it is the only thing that makes sense.

    • turk182 on 30/03/2017 - 15:27

      posted speed limit before the roundabout was 80, i entered the roundabout after coming to a stop first, i think before impact i was going 40-50 but thats a guess.. my airbags didnt go off, only third party airbags went off

      • WhyAmICommenting on 30/03/2017 - 17:50

        Haha, rightly so since they were in the wrong :P

      • megaclix on 31/03/2017 - 15:30

        OK. You started from a standstill. In that case, the other driver is most definatelly at fault.

  • gorge on 30/03/2017 - 16:58

    so was he trying to change lanes while on the roundabout? i didn't even know that was allowed. and it shouldn't be.

    • WhyAmICommenting on 30/03/2017 - 17:55

      No, it's the old "can't turn right from the left lane of a two-lane roundabout trick" (unless there's some stupid lane markings - another discussion)

      Only accident I have been involved in (once, luckily) in 20 years of driving. I refused to accept any responsibility - I was the car in the inside lane going straight.

      Turns out my driving instructor was right when he said don't bother using the inside lane for going straight - save you a lot of pain when someone who doesn't know what they're doing comes along.

      • gorge on 30/03/2017 - 18:03

        well, in that case wasn't he flatly braking the law since the painted arrows on the road before entering the roundabout say you can only turn left or go straight?

        • WhyAmICommenting on 31/03/2017 - 03:04

          The other party than OP? I would say so.

          OP's insurer definitely doesn't care for him!

  • Hirolol on 30/03/2017 - 17:55

    I have to agree with what someone said in regards to you and the 3rd party being from the same insurance company.
    Is it normal that the insurance company will fix the damage and then make whoever pay later?

    It sounds like their thoughts were something like "well we will get the money back either way"

    As others have said, definitely fight it.

  • snajper on 30/03/2017 - 18:27

    You probably have both the same insurer and this way insurance gets two excess payments….
    Very common these days

  • Mrgreenz on 30/03/2017 - 18:36

    Third party would be at fault regardless IMO even if OP had right indicator on

  • releasethekr4cken on 30/03/2017 - 19:03

    What did the police say? Noone should be admitting liability.

  • turk182 on 30/03/2017 - 20:29
    +3

    UPDATE UPDATE:

    Got the call back from the insurance company, in short hope karma deals a big blow to the third party
    They aren't claiming that i was speeding, or didn't signal or even that i entered the roundabout first
    No they are saying that i was in the lane next to them before the roundabout and that we entered the roundabout
    together and that i changed lanes as we entered and that i crashed into them!!!! F8CKING LIAR!!
    i told the insurance company 150% i entered from the other side as i had just left work hence that's where i was coming from
    !!!!!!!!!!! , they have agreed to sent it to the next level and provide me with the third party statements
    There must be some sort of law about lying on these statements, i mean if the third party didn't know what happened they shouldn't be making things up
    edit: third party is insuranced with aami so different company

    • jlogic on 30/03/2017 - 20:51
      +2

      Tossers… This is why a dash cam is necessary.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 21:10
        +1

        Also, in the event of a collision, confront the other drivers and record the conversation. Try to discuss and record the facts of the incident. People will be more candid to discuss the facts before you apportion blame, and often they are misinformed of the road rules and so believe they weren't at fault.

        The police, if you call them, can also help to establish the facts by interviewing the drivers.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 21:12
      +1

      Sorry to hear that matey. People can be turds. Everyone (bar one) in this thread stands in solidarity with you. ✊

      Do you have the contact details of the other driver?

      • turk182 on 30/03/2017 - 21:17

        thanks, yeh after the phone call i visited the apartment of the third party to clarify some details but after ringing the number 3 times no one answered. i only have the driver licence details at the moment so am planning on visiting again tomorrow

        • Scrooge McDuck on 30/03/2017 - 21:19

          Try them again at 3 AM, they're sure to be home then… 😉

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 22:02

          Be very careful if you visit them. You easily be charged with a number of criminal offences if you go too far.

        • turk182 on 30/03/2017 - 22:04

          @Hellfire:
          im not that kind of person, i only seek the truth

        • Hellfire on 30/03/2017 - 22:07

          @turk182:

          Of course, not saying that you would threaten them or hurt them but if you are asked to leave you have to leave. If they ask you not to contact them again then you can't.

        • turk182 on 30/03/2017 - 22:09

          @Hellfire:
          true, i've learned from my previous mistakes, everything will be recorded

        • Scrooge McDuck on 31/03/2017 - 10:29

          @turk182:

          You could bluff and tell her that you have dashcam footage of the entire incident. Tell her that you want to give her an opportunity to tell the truth before you report her to the police for insurance fraud.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 31/03/2017 - 10:32

          @Hellfire:

          If they ask you not to contact them again then you can't.

          Why?

        • bobbified on 31/03/2017 - 11:15
          +3

          I really wouldn't be attempting visit or contact the other driver. You both have insurance company representation and they should be the ones fighting it out. That's what you're paying for when you pay your premium.

          If she's willing to lie for insurance, who knows what she'll say to the cops if you show up to her house? How would you prove that you didn't grab her b00b?

    • tomsco on 30/03/2017 - 21:16

      Well good to know you've got the explanation of work to support your story.

      Not sure if it would be classed as insurance fraud (probably not) but hopefully this at least sees the other party get a hefty premium increase next year.

    • cypher67 on 30/03/2017 - 21:46

      If their version of events is true, then you wouldn't be 50% liable you would be 100% liable because you would have broken the law. So either way they are trying to steal money from you. I have you and many other have learnt from this incident the value of a dash cam. Also I hope you are on the market for a new insurance company.

    • foo on 30/03/2017 - 23:47

      You're clearly in the right, I don't get why there is so many people arguing that you're in the wrong…
      Hope this one turns out well for you OP.

    • whooah1979 on 31/03/2017 - 06:33

      third party

      who is the third party in this collision?

      • turk182 on 31/03/2017 - 09:07

        i have reframed from mentioning the third party, but as the driver has lied on their statement i will let it out.
        mid 30s female asian driver

    • REDRUM on 31/03/2017 - 10:08
      +5

      What type of phone do you have?

      If you use google maps and allowed it, you can generally pull up your travel history.. this would show that their claim is false.

      Assuming your using Google Maps: On a computer, open Google Maps, left hand top corner click the menu icon and select 'Your Timeline' from there you can narrow down to the day and get a high level history of your movements, likely showing the direction of travel, times etc.

    • bobbified on 31/03/2017 - 11:09

      Unfortunately, this happens a lot.

      I used to be an insurance claims assessor and I'd say there was an 70% chance the statements are wildly different. And then when you interview one of those drivers, they'd tell us that the other driver admitted fault at the time of the accident and were really apologetic, etc.

      The lesson I learnt from that is, no matter what anyone says at the time of the accident, I'd be taking as many photos and details of witnesses as I can so that there's backup for my story.

      I'm not sure if it's a pure dishonesty thing from a particular person's point of view or if it's the influence of friends or family members when they eventually get home and realise that they need to pay a largish sum of money for the incident.

    • lysp on 31/03/2017 - 14:25
      +1

      The damage on both cars should also help you verify your story.

      From your diagram it looks like they should have been going mostly straight on. So there should be more damage in your door and damage on the front of their car - is that correct?

      If you both were coming from the same direction, the damage would be different and there would be more scratch damage on your door rather than impact damage.

      Could this help?

      Also a statement stat dec from someone at your work saying you left work at xyz time will also help verify your claim too.

      • highdealer on 31/03/2017 - 15:08

        yeh the Front left of my car hit the back right of the third party, i did attempt to steer away at the last seconds before impact.

        From OP comment. From a physical and logical point i don't see how this could have happen if the collision did in fact happen as the OP describe it.

        Normally if you were going straight the front right of your car would have been in contact with the back right of the other vehicle.
        If the front left of your car hit the back right of the other care, it would rather support the version of event that you change lane from the left side to the right and caught the back of the other car.

        Right now it is rather his word vs the other party word. The OP have not provided and photograph of the accident that would support his story. If i was to be involve in an accident, i would had taken a lot of photographs even if i was in the wrong.

    • Joejoeinc on 31/03/2017 - 16:10

      Do you use any sort of Location history with your Android/Iphone? If so you may be able to prove that you came from a certain direction.

    • nikey2k27 on 31/03/2017 - 16:55

      I had the same problem with some old lady take it to court. get your insurance company to take them to court.

  • cloudy on 30/03/2017 - 21:30
    +1

    OP is definitely in the right.

    Now, it always looks and sounds bad when your hit the rear of another car. But in saying that, there are instances when it's not the fault of the car behind. This is one instance, another common instance, similar to this, is when parked cars pulls out without looking into a road where the cars are reasonably fast, like 60km and forces the behind car to brake (hard) or risk rear ending the front car. The fact is the front car is in fault.

    I say OP needs a new insurance company to stand up for him.

    Which insurance are you with Op?

    • turk182 on 31/03/2017 - 09:08

      im a bargain hunter, went where the prices are down down

      • cloudy on 31/03/2017 - 09:29

        They seem like they've clawed some back now. :(

  • foo on 30/03/2017 - 23:45
    +4

    This triggers me so much

    • jlogic on 30/03/2017 - 23:51
      +2

      Hulk smash?

  • Donaldhump on 31/03/2017 - 01:31
    +1

    i don't think its your fault at all.

    did he/she hit the side of you, or did your front hit the side of them.

    their only argument, might be you were speeding and hit them, ie your were not on the round about first.

    sounds like this isn't the case and its their fault entirely.

  • joelmuzz on 31/03/2017 - 10:27

    Its only your story vs theirs. Your word doesnt count for any more than theirs, even though you know yours is the truth.
    With no witnesses and no dashcam evidence they have two conflicting storys and there is no way to tell who is telling the truth.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join