Not-At-Fault Car Insurance Claim - Being "Investigated"

Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 17:16

So, I was recently involved in a car accident. At an intersection, waiting to turn right, giving way to oncoming traffic. There was a car in front of me, also waiting to turn. We were both "in" the intersection. When the light turned yellow, instead of proceeding with their turn, the driver in front of me reversed into the front of my car.

My car sustained some damage, but is still driveable. I have dashcam footage of the accident, incidentally.

Other driver admitted fault (on the scene, anyway). Got all his details. Later that day, I lodged a claim with my insurance company. As it was only a few days after my new policy began, they mentioned that my claim may be investigated.

Today, I was advised that an external investigator would be in touch. Heard from him this morning. He asked me to conduct an interview, which I agreed to (reluctantly). I'm a bit annoyed by the whole thing. I was insured with this company for the previous three years, anyway, so I'm not sure why they think anything is amiss.

Has anyone else been through this process?

Automotive

Comments

        • jedimaster on 07/10/2023 - 23:18
          +3

          You should do an AMA with insurance fraud stories you saw during your time. Would be popular here!

          • [Deactivated] on 09/10/2023 - 12:16

            @jedimaster: @jedimaster
            I'll definitely consider it.
            I have been toying with the idea of writing a book.

    • Massive Flog on 07/10/2023 - 13:59
      +3

      Ha, no. We're quite different shades, shall we say.

  • GordonD on 07/10/2023 - 09:09
    +2

    I have dashcam footage of the accident

    I'd be making copies of that and ensuring it can't be lost. It looks like it will be very valuable.

    • Massive Flog on 07/10/2023 - 13:59

      Yes, I have three different copies.

      • deme on 07/10/2023 - 16:51

        Post it here

  • 2esc on 07/10/2023 - 10:16
    -3

    What are the rules of being actually in the intersection when the light turns?

    I'll have to look it up but i thought your not actually supposed to be in the intersection waiting to turn?

    I think op will be fine though his insurance is just going through procedure.

    • EBG on 07/10/2023 - 10:38
      +3

      You can definitely enter the intersection (and should) in QLD if there is space, but I always thought it was one car only that should be over the line … but I can’t see this specified (eg https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/traffic-l….)

      ‘Turning right at traffic lights

      If the light is green and there are vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, you can move forward into the intersection past the stop line if you can do so safely.

      If there is a safe gap in oncoming traffic, you may complete the right turn. If you’re in the intersection and the oncoming traffic continues until the lights turn yellow or red, you must complete the turn on the yellow or red light.‘

      • GordonD on 07/10/2023 - 15:38

        I always thought it was one car only that should be over the line

        You can enter an intersection to be positioned to turn. But you can't enter an intersection that is already blocked. My reading of that is that someone already in the intersection waiting turn to turn would be deemed to be blocking it, so you can't enter and wait too.

        But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether the OP ran into the back of the car in front of them, or the driver ahead reversed into them.

        • Roary on 07/10/2023 - 18:27
          -2

          You cant stop in an intersection. So long as you are moving its OK but if you must stop you have to be before the white line

          • terrys on 08/10/2023 - 09:10
            -1

            @Roary: In regards to South Australia at least, you are not mistaken, you are simply wrong.

            You cannot park in an intersection. If you are turning right - as the OP and other driver were - it's not only allowed to enter and wait, but expected.

            • Roary on 08/10/2023 - 20:40

              @terrys: Really? Any proof?

              Here are the NSW rules
              https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-s…

              Keeping intersections clear
              You must not enter an intersection unless there’s space for your vehicle in your lane on the other side of the intersection. This includes all intersections and crossings, including intersections with traffic lights, railway level crossings and pedestrian crossings.

              It might help if you actually did some research rather than state facts and accuse people of being wrong..

              • terrys on 14/10/2023 - 09:50
                +1

                @Roary:

                Any proof?

                As posted that day:

                When turning from any two-way road, you must not stop your vehicle in a position that could obstruct traffic coming from the opposite direction. It is against the law to enter an intersection if you cannot drive through and into the road you plan to enter. However, when turning right, you can proceed into the intersection and wait near the centre of the intersection for the oncoming traffic to pass (as long as it is safe and the road you are turning into is clear).

                https://www.mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/the-drivers-handb…

                The other side of the intersection, on a road going north-south, would be north if you are heading south - not east or west.

                You do your thing, and I, the S.A. road transport authority, and the S.A. police will do ours.

                Your approach wouldn't be unlawful in S.A, merely ill-conceived and a source of inadvertent annoyance to the other users in much the same way an S.A. driver waiting for the car in front in a queue to move forward on change to a green light before starting to move themselves would win applause and appreciation in Sidney

      • F1ProjectOne on 07/10/2023 - 19:19
        +2

        Too many people don't know this rule and wait behind the white line, then when the light turns yellow then red, no one can go through. People are mixing this rule up with the crowding the intersection one above.

        • belongsinforums on 07/10/2023 - 21:28

          this rule almost got me hit by a truck. its a stupid rule

          • spaceflight on 07/10/2023 - 23:18

            @belongsinforums:

            this rule almost got me hit by a truck

            How?

            • belongsinforums on 08/10/2023 - 03:10

              @spaceflight: committed. light turned red. couldnt turn as road was full. got stuck in commit position. truck i was then blocking didnt like me in the commit position. since then i only commit the front half of my car if it looks a bit dicey

  • Brucet on 07/10/2023 - 10:27
    +1

    Which is your car insurance ?

  • bluyu2 on 07/10/2023 - 10:37
    +3

    I used to do investigations for various insurance companies as a private investigator. I wouldn't assume that they are challenging your story etc. It may be that the other dude has given different details of the event etc. Sometimes their 'system' will spit up a person for investigation based on risk management criteria. Again, not too much to worry about.

  • Herbse on 07/10/2023 - 11:12
    -7

    "reversed into you" or "rolled back into you"?

    I find it odd that you're confident it's their fault but haven't shared the video with us. This isn't a court case where you have to keep evidence within the courtroom because it might sway a jury.

    • dji1111111 on 07/10/2023 - 12:02
      +7

      I find it odd that he clearly wrote that the other driver reversed into him but your imaginative mind wants to interpret it as rolled into him.

      He clearly doesn't want to upload the video right now pending the investigation. Logic says it shouldn't matter but he obviously doesn't want to take the chance of risking the outcome of the investigation just to satisfy the demands of random strangers on ozbargain. I find it very odd that you can't easily work this out on your own

      • Massive Flog on 07/10/2023 - 14:02
        +4

        Exactly. Highly unlikely the investigator will read this post, but I don't want to take the chance (maybe it's JV?). I won't be mentioning or uploading anything that can specifically identify me until it's resolved. I will upload the dashcam video once it's sorted.

  • Alexxx on 07/10/2023 - 11:29

    I had something similar but instead of an investigator they requested proof of my previous policy showing the end date.
    Once I sent it through, they took a few days then approved the claim.

  • pn09 on 07/10/2023 - 14:45
    +2

    Good luck OP. Sounds like a pretty stressful time but hopefully the dashcam will clear things up sharpish when the investigator gets it

  • TightAl on 07/10/2023 - 14:53
    -1

    Why dont you upload the video to youtube and post it here?

  • Rick James18 on 07/10/2023 - 15:48
    -8

    Damn son, post the dashcam footage. You sound dodgy as (profanity). I bet it was your fault.

  • imurgod on 07/10/2023 - 16:43

    You must be using a very poor insurer.

    Dashcam footage is the only evidence you need.

    There is no need to investigate anything if it backs your accident description.

    • logistics on 07/10/2023 - 17:03

      I find it interesting that many online claim systems allow you to upload images, word documents, pdfs but no videos.

      They don't even mention that you could upload a video to YouTube and provide a link to them.

      • imurgod on 07/10/2023 - 17:19

        Yes, good point. The ones we use all have drag and drop sections in the portals.

  • logistics on 07/10/2023 - 17:00
    +2

    @Massive Flog see my recent post in the forum.

    The reversing driver is automatically at fault. All other details are irrelevant. Someone can intentionally drive into a reversing vehicle and the driver of the reversing vehicle will be at fault unless you have some dashcam footage to help your cause.

    Your main concern of your claim being investigated, I wouldn't worry and just let it run its course.

    If it was financially feasible, insurance companies would investigate a lot more cases than they do

    • Roary on 07/10/2023 - 18:31

      Sorry you are wrong.. Other details are relevant. Yes a reversing vehicle must always give right of way. But the OPs car should not of been there in the first place to give way too. Sounds like its a 50/50 insurance split to me..
      I would not be surprised if the OP was reversing also just not fast enough.. Hence both cars reversing..

      • logistics on 07/10/2023 - 18:59

        "Sorry you are wrong.. Other details are relevant"

        I agree with you but that's not how the insurance company sees it and that's what matters.

        If you don't believe me give them a call and let me know what they say. I would love to see instances where the reversing driver is not at fault.

    • Massive Flog on 07/10/2023 - 20:05

      @logistics I think you're right on the money.

      Lots of amusing (to me) speculation and smug assumptions posted here (but, that's the internet, eh?), but I haven't revealed everything at this point.

      Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with people who have formed opinions on partial information; the point of my original post was to see if anyone else had been investigated after an insurance claim, and what the process entails.

      I'm not worried about being investigated, but I'm seriously annoyed that it's happening.

      Anyway, I will post updates after everything is settled.

  • kaleidoscope on 07/10/2023 - 23:15

    Most likely other driver provided false information about the incident and there is a clash. Just send them off the footage and it'll be the end of it.

    If I remember correctly, if you're at an intersection past the stop line and the lights turn red, you're legally required to clear the intersection so you and driver at front should be turning to the right instead of reversing 

    Good luck!

    • spaceflight on 07/10/2023 - 23:25

      if you're at an intersection past the stop line and the lights turn red, you're legally required to clear the intersection

      Which you could do by reversing if you really wanted to.

      • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 23:28

        You really need to brush up on the roads rules or am I correct in saying you don't have a driver's license yet?

        • spaceflight on 08/10/2023 - 00:01

          If the traffic lights or traffic arrows (as the case may be) change to yellow or red while the driver is stopped and the driver has entered the intersection, the driver must leave the intersection as soon as the driver can do so safely.

          The rules don't say which direction you need to travel to leave the intersection

          • kaleidoscope on 08/10/2023 - 00:02
            -1

            @spaceflight: yes its like hook turn you go forward

            • spaceflight on 08/10/2023 - 00:09
              -1

              @kaleidoscope:

              hook turn you go forward

              Then you wouldn't be doing a hook turn if you went forwards.

              • kaleidoscope on 08/10/2023 - 00:26
                -1

                @spaceflight: forward as in where you intended to go in the first place… not straight ahead

                • spaceflight on 08/10/2023 - 00:35

                  @kaleidoscope:

                  forward as in

                  The definition?

                  forward
                  in the direction that one is facing or traveling; toward the front.

                  But then

                  not straight ahead

                  So forward but not forward?

                  where you intended to go in the first

                  That would be to the right, not forward

                  • kaleidoscope on 08/10/2023 - 07:59
                    -1

                    @spaceflight: You must be really bored, i’ll let you figure this one out. good luck 🫡

                    • spaceflight on 08/10/2023 - 10:59
                      +1

                      @kaleidoscope: I'm just pointing out that perhaps you might need to do your driving test again if you don't know the direction you travel in when you complete a hook turn

    • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 23:27
      +2

      If I remember correctly,

      You remembered correctly. Technically OP should never have crossed the line so only the first car was required to vacate the intersection moving forward (if safe to do so)

      • kaleidoscope on 07/10/2023 - 23:50

        there you go 💪

      • MattyD on 08/10/2023 - 00:29
        +1

        Yeah, this ^. In Qld there are multiple road rules (and associated demerit classifications) targeting 'queuing' on intersections or crossings. Admittedly, it is one of those rules that - anecdotally - many don't seem to know or follow. You see muppets every day caught blocking multi-lane intersections after the lights change - as if being 5m ahead somehow dramatically improves their arrival time.

        128 Entering blocked intersections
        A driver must not enter an intersection if the driver can not drive through the intersection because the intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, is blocked.
        Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.

        • kaleidoscope on 08/10/2023 - 08:02

          I saw in vic roads recently they are trialling use of cameras to issue fines for drivers breaking this rule and causing more congestion by end of the year.

        • terrys on 08/10/2023 - 09:20
          +1

          The "blocking" of the second driver who wishes to turn right is different from that of the first driver only on that there is one car already taking advantage of the protocol. If the first car is not regarded as "blocked" for the purpose of the legislation, it can hardly be a block to the following vehicle.

          The five minutes "saved" isn't the issue - rather the ability to move three of four cars each cycle rather than one.

          With only one car at a time allowed to proceed, the problem isn't at the intersection - but road approaching it as one through lane eventually gets closed off by cars backed up waiting to turn right.

          The only "blockage" of the second car would be caused by drivers going straight ahead queuing in the through lanes and their unlawful actions in entering a blocked intersection preventing the turning cars completing their legitimate manoeuvre.

          • MattyD on 08/10/2023 - 15:28

            @terrys: I'm not sure I follow (or agree with) your logic - at least as far as the law (or its officers) would be concerned.

            The "blocking" of the second driver who wishes to turn right is different from that of the first driver only on that there is one car already taking advantage of the protocol

            Which (lawful) 'protocol' do you refer to? I'd previously believed a driver can legally queue in an intersection to turn right, but until I see that rule I'm inclined now to believe the above rule proves that belief wrong. Both drivers in your scenario have entered an intersection they are unable to exit due to blockage (the first driver, due to prevailing/oncoming traffic; the second driver, due to the first driver).

            The rest of your reasoning makes good sense to me as a driver, but our opinion/experience is completely moot if rule 128 (or the relevant state's equivalent) applies to OP's scenario.

            Can anybody quote legislation that supersedes, negates or replaces rule 28 in OP's scenario?

            • terrys on 08/10/2023 - 18:34
              +1

              @MattyD:

              When turning from any two-way road, you must not stop your vehicle in a position that could obstruct traffic coming from the opposite direction. It is against the law to enter an intersection if you cannot drive through and into the road you plan to enter. However, when turning right, you can proceed into the intersection and wait near the centre of the intersection for the oncoming traffic to pass (as long as it is safe and the road you are turning into is clear).

              https://www.mylicence.sa.gov.au/road-rules/the-drivers-handb…

              In the above scenario, if the road you are turning into has banked traffic, and such traffic is stationary, leaving no space for the right-hand cars to turn into, it would be unlawful for a vehicle to enter the intersection on a green light, with the intention of lawfully completing the manoeuvre when the light turns red and the oncoming traffic is no longer passing though the intersection.

              Note: There is absolutely no mention of even suggestion of a "one vehicle" policy in the above instructions from the S.A. drivers handbook.

              • MattyD on 09/10/2023 - 10:01
                +1

                @terrys: Ah that's very interesting - thank you. I wonder how carefully policy/law makers check for consistency between the drivers' handbook and the official road rules (as enforced by police).

                Could you imagine how many subjective components of that clause you would have to argue with a police officer who has interpreted it (or your actions) incorrectly? What a potential nightmare!

  • Poor Ass on 08/10/2023 - 07:52
    +2

    Same thing happen to me and my insurer asked for the footage at a much later time. It's a given that in an accident you never admit liability even when you are at fault.

    To one up the situation, the other party reported to police that I rear ended them. I also gave the cops the footage and never heard from them. Not sure if the other party got in trouble or charged with anything.

  • GregRust on 08/10/2023 - 09:03

    You shouldn’t have been in the intersection in the first place. Only one car can queue. Accident wouldn’t have occurred if you hadn’t broken this road law.

    • terrys on 08/10/2023 - 09:13

      Only one car can queue.

      A citation may help. In Adelaide at least, you are wrong.

      Either that, or most Adelaide drivers including the police are…

      • MattyD on 08/10/2023 - 15:34
        +1

        Either that, or most Adelaide drivers including the police are [wrong]…

        It scares me a bit that what we all believe(d) as drivers (myself included, here in Qld) may actually be wrong. Hoping this thread helps by people providing the citation you're asking for, so we can move forward better educated.

        Off topic a bit, but I only learned in the last 5 years that - when performing a U-turn - you must give way to all traffic (including vehicles that would otherwise have to give way entering the road/lane you are now travelling on). I've seen so many near accidents on this one where the only thing that saved the U-turn driver from a serious at-fault accident was the grace of other drivers.

        e.g.
        also from here:

        If you're using a slip lane, you must give way to all traffic already on the road you're entering (except vehicles doing a U-turn).

        • terrys on 08/10/2023 - 18:42
          +1

          Off topic a bit,

          Along with that, the "slip lanes", where a "zip" merge is mandated don't apply when there is a dashed (or solid, natch) lane marker line. What I find ambiguous, and err on the side of caution with, is where there is a cycle lane on the through road you are joining, so there are two dashed lines.

          As for " cannot cross a solid lane marking lane to overtake unless overtaking a bicycle", when it is demanded to preserve the one meter space, there's a retrofit tailor made for disaster:-( Either the solid line is needed for safety, or there is an error margin some folks are going to start righteously and ignorantly factoring in…

  • Davo1111 on 08/10/2023 - 10:58

    What's in it for you? Is your insurer aware of this?

  • Eeples on 08/10/2023 - 11:13

    Does your video cam clearly show his reversing lights ?

    Does your video show a congested road you were both turning in ton?

    Was the road you were both turning in to congested? Maybe he reversed because he couldn’t turn and didn’t want to be stuck in the intersection.

    Was there a walk/don’t walk? Maybe he didn’t want to partially turn and block pedestrians.

  • soaringphoenix on 08/10/2023 - 16:12

    I was investigated once for a not-at-fault accident. Had an investigator meet me for a two hour interview. In the end they concluded that there was 25% contributory negligence on my behalf for driving too fast. This didn't affect my payout (my car was a write off and I received the full insured value). It also didn't affect my CTP coverage for medical treatment of some broken bones. It did however mean that any future claims would have the payment reduced by 25%. This judgement was reached nearly 8 months after my accident, by which time I was recovered, and it never affected me from then on. They also explained unequivocally that I could continue to state that I had not been in any at-fault accidents when applying for insurance.

    • Muzeeb on 08/10/2023 - 16:39

      Did you have to pay an excess / partial excess?

      • soaringphoenix on 09/10/2023 - 08:14
        +2

        Nope, no excess in any form.

  • Joda on 08/10/2023 - 20:14
    +1

    Was the other driver aware you had a dashcam?

    …what they reported might be very different to what happened - I can think of a few scenarios that might explain an investigation.

  • Muzeeb on 11/10/2023 - 10:27
    +2

    How did the interview go?

  • Muzeeb on 20/10/2023 - 00:09
    +4

    Surely you have an update for us now OP?

  • Muzeeb on 22/10/2023 - 11:40
    +2

    You were logged on 3 hours ago OP. How about an update?

  • Massive Flog on 26/10/2023 - 12:11
    +4

    Update: the claim has been approved after all.

    The actual circumstances of the accident were completely irrelevant as to why I was investigated. The reasoning was that I made a claim on a "new" policy, despite the fact that I had been insured with the same company for at least two years, previously. As I mentioned earlier, I never auto-renew; I go through the process of getting quotes each year.

    From an email: "Please note your claim has automatically been referred for review as the incident occurred within the first 10 days of policy commencement".

    I had an hour-long Zoom (equivalent) interview with the insurance investigator. I got definite ex-cop vibes from him. During the interview, I mentioned that my previous insurance policy was with the same company, so I'm not sure how I would benefit from "date shifting" the accident (prior to the actual recorded interview, we'd briefly spoken on the phone, and he had strongly implied that the accident had really occurred on an earlier date).

    Subsequent to the interview, the investigator asked me to provide phone records, which include location information (side story, I was unable to obtain that information from my telco, who told me they don't actually keep location records). Also, he requested photos of my car prior to the accident and at the accident scene, as well as a few other things.

    After wasting time gathering most of these items, he contacted me to advise that my claim had been approved. Apparently, they had failed to find my previous policy through a search, and only found it when I gave him the specific policy number during our Zoom interview.

    My car is booked in for repair in mid December, which is the earliest date available. I originally had a booking for next week after initially lodging the claim, but that booking was cancelled due to the investigation.

    So, the whole thing was pretty stupid and a complete waste of everyone's time.

    The insurance company was AAMI, FYI.

    • Yummy on 26/10/2023 - 12:52
      +1

      The insurance company was AAMI

      Jackpot!!

      I left AAMI for NRMA. Never looked back.

      • timhn on 28/10/2023 - 09:22

        Same here. I was stupidly joined them for about $100 cheaper, got into accident. The claim process was a PITA. Left immediately after to NRMA. I've tried to warned any of my friends not to go with AAMI since.

        • Massive Flog on 02/11/2023 - 22:22

          @timhn It's interesting. I had a claim many years ago with AAMI. Car was written off (I wasn't even the one driving it), and the claim went through very quickly.

          Had a minor not-at-fault about three years ago, and it was dealt with pretty efficiently, too.

          They really need to look at their process. The whole thing's left a sour tatse in my mouth, for sure. Will be looking elsewhere next year.

      • Massive Flog on 02/11/2023 - 22:23

        @Yummy Yes, you were spot on.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/10/2023 - 12:56
      +2

      Excellent!

      Now you can provide the dashcam vision

    • sildosaggins on 28/10/2023 - 01:17

      AAMI? So pretty much Suncorp. Not surprised. Had a similar type of treatment from Shannons who are also under Suncorp. Went through AFCA for my issue with them and got it sorted, wasted months of time.

  • Massive Flog on 26/10/2023 - 12:22

    I found this during my "research", by the way: https://download.asic.gov.au/media/5422526/rep621-published-…

    Interesting read.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2023 - 12:52
    +1

    How about the dashcam vision - finished downloading yet?

    • Nugs on 27/10/2023 - 18:45
      +1

      pretty please
      .

      • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2023 - 20:09

        Well, OP did promise and yet …..(crickets)

  • Massive Flog on 02/11/2023 - 22:23

    Dashcam footage will be uploaded, but it may take a while. I'm a man of my word. Please be patient.

    • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2023 - 10:14
      +1

      Your dashcam was one of the best investments you have ever made! 👍

    • Nugs on 10/11/2023 - 10:22

      wow PR4DIP
      .

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join