70/30 liability help!!!

[nicole1991]

i was turning right from the left side of the road into my work carpark, another car over took me and hit the front right corner of my brand new 10 reg car! he said he did not see me indicating. he has accepted liability to me and to the insurance. so how come i still have to folk out for 30% when he came out of know where and was not anywhere when i began to msm . he appeared out of know where at some speed it took him awhile to stop after! any advice ? what should i do?

[boxtops]

Who's offered you the 70%? You don't have to accept the first offer made, particularly if you have proof, and if the other guy admitted liability. Make sure yoru insurance company know that.

[bednobs]

i would guess it's your insurance co paying,not you? If they have agreed to pay, they must think you have some liability, or that it would be cheaper for them to accept 30% rather than contest it in court etc. The only thing you can do is appealt o your insurance company

[nicole1991]

My insurance say its the best deal so i am suppost to pay 30% of my excess!!

[nicole1991]

it has apparently happened before and settled with 70/30, and as my insurence and his are both owned by rbs they want it done with quick! but if he has accepted surely i shouldnt have to pay anything??

[joko]

i dont see how you coudld be at all to blame...as he came from behind, and overtook when it was not safe to do so...

he was obviously impatient and didnt wait to see if you had stopped for some other reason

i would fight it, as it will raise your premuims

[nicole1991]

it has apparently happened before and gone to court and settled at 70/30 so they recon its the best deal im going to get!! i dont understand thou if he accepts liability :/

[bednobs]

well there you go. Your insurance company clearly think that this is the best they can get away with. I don't think you get a say in it TBH

[Barmaid]

I would tell your insurance company that you do not accept liability and will not accept their 30% offer. On your version (clearly I've not seen the TP's version) he is 100% liable. I would stick to my guns.

[factor-fiction]

It sems harsh but the insurer is perhaps mindful that it if it goes to court there is a risk it could be argued you failed to/delayed your indication and that you pulled out at the last minute and were therefore partly liable.
But by all means challenge your insurer.

[twix123]

You state in your original post that you were turning right from the left side of the road, are there two lanes in the direction you were travelling and therefore were you in the wrong lane? If that is the case then the 70/30 offer is probably the best that you will get.
If you were in the correct lane to make the right hand turn, then I would go back to the insurers and claim that it was a Non Fault accident and therefore you should no pay any excess.
One way or another, the RBS group (Direct Line, Churchill and Privilege) should be picking up 100% of the costs and subsequently claiming as much as possible from the Third Party's excess!

[R1Geezer]

Why does your insurer even know? they admit liability claim 100% off them, small claims if necessary. Never ever ever even tell your own insurers they are all a sh0wer of sh1te. Old boys network etc. It is your business not your insurers. Tell them if you must after the claim has been settled.

[nicole1991]

it was outside the school i work at and there is only one lane each way, he has accepted liability but its the insurence who are saying the its a presedent so it has to be 70/30! or so they told me yesterday!!
Today however they have changed their tune and are investigating so it might be 70/30 but might not!
i even phoned who would be fixing the car which is round the corner from where the accident happened and they are even direct lines garage, and they agree that down the road that it happened which has speed bump all the way down that it wasnt my fault. i can only hope the insurence come back and say i dont need to pay!

[factor-fiction]

But you wouldn't be 'forking out' the 30% would you-? Your insurer pays that surely. However yes it may affect your NCD in future
You say the other party has accepted liability but I'm not clear how you know they accepted 100% liability, and even if they did the insurance company are able to argue for a better settlement.
Good luck though.

[peterdeanmagic]

Tell your insurance that you are not liable and refuse to accept the outcome.My company said 50/50.i stuck to my guns and repeatedley refused to accept nothing less than he was 100% at fault(pulled out a side road into me!)
In the end they said we may have to go to court and i said then we go.
All of a suddden they started getting strong with the other drivers insurance and settled .i was not at fault and would not take any blame.
In the end i won.Do not back down.
They are trying to screw you over.It is no importance who his insurance company is as youu are on your own policy.Stay stubborn!

[Barmaid]

Absolutely, there is no such thing as a "precedent" in these cases. they are fact specific. Just because they might have recently lost one in similar circumstances means didly squat. I have done more of these claims that I could shake a stick at and I have only once known of precedent to be quoted in court. The Judge in that case was almost catatonic at "precedent" being quoted at him and promptly ignored it. Stick to your guns.

[peterdeanmagic]

Tell your insurance that you are not liable and refuse to accept the outcome.My company said 50/50.i stuck to my guns and repeatedley refused to accept nothing less than he was 100% at fault(pulled out a side road into me!)
In the end they said we may have to go to court and i said then we go.
All of a suddden they started getting strong with the other drivers insurance and settled .i was not at fault and would not take any blame.
In the end i won.Do not back down.
They are trying to screw you over.It is no importance who his insurance company is as youu are on your own policy.Stay stubborn!

[factor-fiction]

Am I seeing double tonight, peterdeanmagic?
I'm puzzled though as to why nicole1991 thinks the fact that both policies are RBS is a key factor as to why the company is settling for 70/30. Whether its 70/30 or 100/0 RBS will pay all of it. You won't fork out anything.
Companies settle on what they think are the best terms they can get. If you press for an unreasonable split of liability there is a risk that legal costs will be increased and the decision may be less favourable- for example press for 100/0 and the decision may be 60/40, so 70/30 would have been a good settlement.
Having said that, Barmaid's advice is usually right so i'll back her

[nicole1991]

i will have to pay 30% of my excess!!

[twix123]

If the Third Party was 100% at fault, I would refuse to pay any excess, it should all be payable by their insurers. State that it was a No Fault claim otherwise it will affect your future premiums and may increase any compulsory excess figure at your next renewal.