Custom24 wrote:
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).
morsing wrote:Custom24 wrote:
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.
redrobo wrote:Were there two lanes on the entry slip?
redrobo wrote: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.
morsing wrote:redrobo wrote: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.
morsing wrote: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".
jcochrane wrote: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.
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests