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.

[Stu]

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

i agree, that is a load of tosh! speak to another solicitor indeed.

[Juju]

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.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Juju

only when the policyholder is being difficult,.

Smudge? ROFLMAO

[andrewsmith]

Get another solicitor.

They should ask your consent to settle

Originally Posted by Juju

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]

Get advice from a proper bike specialist lawyer like White Dalton or Bromilly Holcroft.There is no substitute for the correct advice.