Accident at roundabout

[playtent]

Tell your insurance just to be safe. You don't have to make a claim.

[morsing]

Your accident history is affected now, regardless. The only thing you could do is lie when they ask the question "Any claims, accidents of losses regardless of blame". Even if the incident was settled entirely in your favour, you'd still have to tell them about the accident when it came to renewal time, and it would still affect the premium (maybe only slightly in the case of a non-fault accident).

That's not really true. I've asked several different insurers about "accident history" and they've all said "We don't care unless it was your fault". None of the ones I've used have ever said "...regardless of blame".

To the OP - I was recently sent a court transcript by my insurance company from a case called "Grace vs. Tanner" which was pretty much identical to your scenario. That ended, after an appeal, with a 50-50. Might be worth referencing as a 50-50 will still be cheaper than taking the full blame.

If you want I can send you a scan of the court case. Indicating is on your side but without any named witnesses it probably won't help you much.

[vonhosen]

Your accident history is affected now, regardless. The only thing you could do is lie when they ask the question "Any claims, accidents of losses regardless of blame". Even if the incident was settled entirely in your favour, you'd still have to tell them about the accident when it came to renewal time, and it would still affect the premium (maybe only slightly in the case of a non-fault accident).

That's not really true. I've asked several different insurers about "accident history" and they've all said "We don't care unless it was your fault". None of the ones I've used have ever said "...regardless of blame".

To the OP - I was recently sent a court transcript by my insurance company from a case called "Grace vs. Tanner" which was pretty much identical to your scenario. That ended, after an appeal, with a 50-50. Might be worth referencing as a 50-50 will still be cheaper than taking the full blame.

If you want I can send you a scan of the court case. Indicating is on your side but without any named witnesses it probably won't help you much.

It's here
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... method=all

[devonutopia]

In hindsight, it sounds like you should have been behind the van around there? I think the right hand lane on approach to the roundabout was the correct lane for the exit the van driver wanted to take, and the one you wanted to take (but didn't know it at the time?) You didn't know you'd be going right around the roundabout before you got there? Was that down to just not knowing the area / having no sat-nav?

This is just my gut instinct talking and I don't know any real facts at all.

[redrobo]

Van driver at fault, you were in the correct position for the entry slip, the van driver was in the wrong lane for the entry slip. It makes no difference that you may have started in the wrong lane or the fact you were unsure of the lane you needed.
Did you see the van prior to impact? Were there two lanes on the entry slip?

[Gareth]

Were there two lanes on the entry slip?

Using the link to Google Maps I provided earlier and then the Satellite view, it can be seen that the road leading to the roundabout has only one lane but it widens immediateley before the roundabout, allowing two car sized vehicles to enter simultaneously.

Leading up to the roundabout there is a large direction sign.

[morsing]

Van driver at fault, you were in the correct position for the entry slip, the van driver was in the wrong lane for the entry slip. It makes no difference that you may have started in the wrong lane or the fact you were unsure of the lane you needed.

Please read the case Grace vs. Tanner.

The only difference I can see, which is a significant one, is that although the exit road has two marked lanes, the roundabout doesn't! That was one of the reasons for not entirely blame the outside laner in that case. I'd say based on that the OP might stand an slightly better chance but probably still going to be 50-50.

[zadocbrown]

Looks like a textbook illustration of how in so many cases any of the parties involved could have avoided the incident. Always allow for the 'other idiot'.

[MGF]

Van driver at fault, you were in the correct position for the entry slip, the van driver was in the wrong lane for the entry slip. It makes no difference that you may have started in the wrong lane or the fact you were unsure of the lane you needed.

Please read the case Grace vs. Tanner.

The only difference I can see, which is a significant one, is that although the exit road has two marked lanes, the roundabout doesn't! That was one of the reasons for not entirely blame the outside laner in that case. I'd say based on that the OP might stand an slightly better chance but probably still going to be 50-50.

I would also distinguish G v T from this case on the basis that in the former the claimant was leaving the rab at the same time as the defendant drove across the exit and in the OP's case, it appears the van driver was moving from offside to nearside of the RAB (effectively changing lanes) prior to exiting.

[7db]

Once again, Dave's RAB maxim no.1 applies: never go round with anyone else.

[Gareth]

I like how you've added to the discussion

[7db]

I was in awe of your identification of the RAB in question. It was the least I could do.

My advice:-

1) Tell your insurer immediately. You have a contract of utmost good faith. They can tell you they want to ignore it if they want to ignore it.

2) Don't go round with anyone else.

[Custom24]

That's not really true. I've asked several different insurers about "accident history" and they've all said "We don't care unless it was your fault". None of the ones I've used have ever said "...regardless of blame".

That's peculiar. I presume you mean they said "We don't care unless it was at least partially your fault". I've never had an insurance company say that - they've always phrased the question pretty much as I put it, including "regardless of blame", which is at least clear, if nothing else.

Even so, I can imagine some people getting themselves into bother with insurance over the phrase "Your fault". Most people if they came out in the morning to find their car keyed, window smashed, dented, etc, wouldn't think it was their "fault" it had happened, but from an insurance point of view, it still counts as a fault claim, because there is no one else to claim damages from. So I can imagine them not thinking they had to mention it when they were shopping around at renewal time. I can also imagine other bull-headed people (and I don't mean you or anyone else on this forum, morsing) thinking that since that driver should have been indicating, it wasn't their "fault" and again fail to mention it when asked.

It's important to listen/read the question properly, when it is asked.

[jcochrane]

I've found it hard to accept that an insurance company can decide that it is "my fault" that the other party has no insurance.

[Custom24]

I've found it hard to accept that an insurance company can decide that it is "my fault" that the other party has no insurance.

A good example. Direct Line have been advertising for some time on this topic, suggesting that they treat instances where you are hit by an uninsured driver differently than other insurance companies. I've not bothered to look into if there is much substantial difference, or what other insurance companies' policies are on this matter.