View Full Version : Stiffed by my own insurance!!!
I was in an accident last April as some of you know. Liability was in depute and as far as I knew still ongoing, my solicitors advised me to write a 50/50 letter to the third party insurers even though I didn't accept fault.
anyway I phoned my insurers today and they have made a non-prejudiced payment to the third party unbeknown to me which my solicitor has now closed the case due to this payment.
What I want to know is how can this happen without going to court and without my will?
So the story know is I've got a broken back and a smashed up bike and no come back.
:scratch: I thought you were a Freeman and did not recognise the laws of this land?
If not, then your solicitor should not give up because of a payment without prejudice get another solicitor
Jimmy2Feet
28-01-11, 04:54 PM
i agree, that is a load of tosh! speak to another solicitor indeed.
I fhtey didn't write to you to tell you, then they are breeching their "Treating customer fairly" charter.
Why did they pay wop? Insurers will do that only when the policyholder is being difficult, has no real case but wont accept this, and or won't go to court to defend the matter.
As a claims person of 13 y or so experience, tell me the ins and outs and I'll try to translate what went on and what decisions were likely to have been made?
The very idea of a wop payment is that it is not prejudicial, so I doubt the solicitors will have closed the file on that basis. It seems more that no one on the evidence thinks you have much of a case for holding the third party at fault. If a solicitor even gets 20%, they get paid in full, and so commercially, the solicitors decision making process is different to the insurers. The insurers pay to prevent expensive court action, solicitors pursue matters, however unlikely, to make money. If both washed their hands of you, theres something to suggest neither fancied their chances at court.
only when the policyholder is being difficult,.
Smudge? ROFLMAO :lol:
andrewsmith
28-01-11, 08:43 PM
Get another solicitor.
They should ask your consent to settle
I fhtey didn't write to you to tell you, then they are breeching their "Treating customer fairly" charter.
Why did they pay wop? Insurers will do that only when the policyholder is being difficult, has no real case but wont accept this, and or won't go to court to defend the matter.
As a claims person of 13 y or so experience, tell me the ins and outs and I'll try to translate what went on and what decisions were likely to have been made?
The very idea of a wop payment is that it is not prejudicial, so I doubt the solicitors will have closed the file on that basis. It seems more that no one on the evidence thinks you have much of a case for holding the third party at fault. If a solicitor even gets 20%, they get paid in full, and so commercially, the solicitors decision making process is different to the insurers. The insurers pay to prevent expensive court action, solicitors pursue matters, however unlikely, to make money. If both washed their hands of you, theres something to suggest neither fancied their chances at court.
Ok the ins and outs were the guy infront slowed down and I indicated to overtake then whilst I was overtaking turned right without indication into my path so as it was a single track meaning two lanes as opposed to a dual carrigeway I have no leg to stand on but non of this was talked about and the case was abandoned without any of the people involved.
The first words of the third party was sorry I didn't see you mate!
followed by is there anything you want me to get rid of before the police turn up.
EDIT: I understand that I was the one overtaking but is it not requirement to signal?
To be honest and a little bit brutal from what you have just written I would say you were at fault for the accident which is why they settled. There was obviously a turn right (which was probably signposted) so any overtaking there would be dangerous. Unfortunately the onus was on you to also slow down and see what the driver in front was going to do, not to overtake, wether he signalled or not. In the IAM training (I'm a senior observer) anyone overtaking by a right turn would be told it was unacceptable and dangerous and if it happened on the test it would be an immediate fail. The fact the driver said what he did is heresay and not provable and he probably didn't say the same in his statement. I wish i could say different and that the solicitors were wrong but they're prob right in what they did but it's strange for the insurers not to keep you informed as to what they have done, perhaps if you pm Ed he may be able to advise you if it's worth pursueing.
Daryl
No not sign posted the turn right was a dirt track the guy was turning round because he couldn't find his way.
Edit: and I was following the guy for the last 1/4 mile I wouldn't of followed the guy for so long without overtaking earlier if he wasn't dithering looking at road signs, trust me i've been riding without incident for 18 years up until this year.
Further edit: famous last words!!!!!!!!!
Biker Biggles
28-01-11, 09:58 PM
Get advice from a proper bike specialist lawyer like White Dalton or Bromilly Holcroft.There is no substitute for the correct advice.
Thank you much appreciated I'll google em!
speedplay
28-01-11, 10:08 PM
Get advice from a proper bike specialist lawyer like White Dalton or Bromilly Holcroft.There is no substitute for the correct advice.
Wouldnt touch them with a shi**y stick.
ok with some of the simpler things but any grey areas and they bugger about all the time.
yorkie_chris
29-01-11, 01:20 AM
To be honest and a little bit brutal from what you have just written I would say you were at fault for the accident which is why they settled.
If you'd seen the road, it's a tiny driveway this guy was turning down.
And I believe someone turning into a road has a duty to make sure it is safe to do so.
IAM, whatever, IAM is about preventing accidents, this is blame game not exam for who can ride around car park ;)
AndyBrad
29-01-11, 10:44 AM
sounds crap mate.
i agree if there is a filter lane or obvious right turning then yes you would not overtake. However when turning across the path of another vehicle it is the responcibility of the driver to ensure it is safe. unfortunatly this didnt happen and smudge was caught up in it. isnt this in the filtering insurance letter type thing thats been contested in court and won before?
Yes, the IAM is about preventing accidents which is why I posted what I did, it's all about observation, speed, riding to the conditions etc. All I was saying is what I think the solicitors thought about the case and why they did what they did. as i said it's strange that Smudge wasn't kept informed and he ought to contact somebody else about it for a legal point of view. Where does an exam in a car park come into it. It's certainly not an IAM exam!! whics is carried out on the road. I agree it is a blame game but with no witnesses conclusions have to be drawn on information from both parties which is what has happened.
Daryl
Sid Squid
29-01-11, 04:56 PM
:scratch: I thought you were a Freeman and did not recognise the laws of this land?
What's this to do with the law? This is detail of a an agreement between two parties - Mr Smudge and the insurance company - voluntarily.
Do try to keep up Stu.
The reality Smudge is that the insurer has exercised its powers of subrogation.
In other words, they stand in your shoes, and they can settle it if they like. They don't need to tell you, let alone consult you. They can do what they like. Whether it suits you is neither here nor there.
As the payment was made without prejudice, the fact that it was made is inadmissible in any court case so you still have a claim. Go find another lawyer.
I think that the comments made about the IAM are unfortunate, unjustified except by prejudice, and frankly risible. It isn't a trip round a car park. Whether you like it or not, overtaking at a junction of whatever sort is best avoided. Suppose someone had turned left out of the junction. OK it's a dirt track, not a road as most people would call it, but what about a quad? They probably would have looked right - but not left - result, a head on.
yorkie_chris
30-01-11, 09:43 PM
You can see down the 'road' from the direction smudge was travelling, so obviously no risk of someone turning out of it.
The comment about IAM wasn't serious, just making the point that something being a bit naughty from the IAM point of view does not make it relevant from the point of view of deciding who is at fault. And going "tut tut, naughty boy" is not going to weld his broken frame back together either...
Bluefish
30-01-11, 09:57 PM
OK it's a dirt track, not a road as most people would call it, but what about a quad? They probably would have looked right - but not left - result, a head on.
And if that had happened it would have been the quads fault for not looking where he was going, but as you say ED, get another solicitor.
I wonder if the other guy "remembered" he had his indicators on by the time he filled in his insurance claim form. Wouldn't be the first time.
Smudge, if you're going to seek further advice get some photos of the accident site (if you haven't done so already).
The reason I say that is, from the description of the accident, it's easy for the insurance company to think "Ah, it's one of those - the result will be X".
Sometimes, when you see pics, it can change your opinion.
What's this to do with the law? This is detail of a an agreement between two parties - Mr Smudge and the insurance company - voluntarily.
Do try to keep up Stu.
Smudge's claim is against the other party who only has a duty of care under the Law. Yes, Smudge's OP was as regards his insurance company, but that's irelevant if he's not relying on his claim against the 3rd party under the law.
Sid Squid
31-01-11, 07:51 PM
No it isn't - if Smudge in accepting the terms of his insurance agreed to the company making such a decision without reference to him there isn't a question of the law at all, it's still an agreement freely made between two parties.
I got desperate and put posters up for witnesses just sorting through the jokers now.
I phoned my crap solicitors Horwich Farrely and they said they haven't dropped the case but they have been a waste of space with regards to advice or communication. And they say if someone else takes it on they will have to pay their costs
Suggest you complain (in writing) and demand improvement. They will have to take it seriously.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.