We seem to ge getting a spate of cases where people are being pressed by their insurers to accept split liability when they seem clearly to be non-fault accidents.

I have had one this week where the other oncoming driver clearly misjudged the gap in traffic to turn right crossing the client's lane and resulting in a collision and 4 injuries - the insurer has urged settlement at 70:30 against our client.

I have another where the vehicle crashed into the rear of a vehicle and causing very serious injuries. Photographs of the damage, police called.

Rear end shunt with no frontal damage is almost always a non-fault case for the vehicle in front. The bloke left the scene after handing over his details and before the police arrived and the insurer had to search the MID to find him.

Six weeks later he produces an "independent witness" who gives a statement saying the car in front "pulled out" - so the insurer recommends settling at 50:50 even though the accident report contradicts his version.

When our accident investigators attempt to contact the "independent witness" the address is derelict following a fire and has been so for some time.

It just seems that many insurers aren't willing to put any effort into investigating cases which would fall over at the first stage if any checks had been made.