Insurers say the daftest things - concrete
Had a collision while negotiating a roundabout. A truck in the lane to my left cut across into my lane. Absolutely no doubt who is to blame, though he would not admit it. My insurer says all collisions on roundabouts are disputes. Why so? I am sure nearly every collision is a dispute, nobody does the right thing any more. But what a weak kneed attitude. Luckily I have legal assistance and they will take the case to recover uninsured losses. As for the insurers they couldn't seem to care less what happens or who is at fault.

Edited by Pugugly on 25/10/2008 at 17:36

insurers say the daftest things - gmac
Who is the other person insured with ? OK, in the case of a truck maybe some inter company agreement but car to car if you are both with the same company then it will be a 50/50 for some odd reason !?!?!?!?
insurers say the daftest things - yorkiebar
Why is it obvious who is to blame?

Any witnesses or just your word against his?

And are you whiter than white?

Purely devils advocate; but have seen so many black and white stories as grey before now!
insurers say the daftest things - keasden
Long time lurker on but had to make my first post in response to this one.

My wife had a very similar experience 2 years ago. Approached a roundabout on a dual carriageway in the offside lane with the intention of continuing straight on, ie exit at 12 o'clock. The road markings on the approach to the roundabout showed an arrow for left turn and straight on in the n/s lane and straight on or right turn on the o/s lane.

As my wife was beginning to exit the car on her inside tried going round the whole roundabout and turning right, ie 3 o'clock exit. The inevitable collision happened with the other cars front offside corner colliding with the rear nearside of our car.

Both cars stopped, no injuries and both cars still driveable but a fair bit of damage. I took photos of the scene, approach, damage and the debris which showed the collision had taken place in the offside lane on the exit of the roundabout.

Insurance response - 50/50 its too difficult to determine blame with a collision on a roundabout. Needless to say I hit the roof and pointed out that in this day and age where everyman and his dog seem to cry whiplash at the first hint of an accident we were saying that there was no injuries and refused to accept any responsibility for someone driving into the side of us on a roundabout, a situation we had no control over whatsoever.

After much letter writing my insurers eventually agreed to appoint a solicitor as I insisted we would take her to the small claims court ourself if necessary. After legal proceedings were commenced and a court date obtained the other driver eventually admitted 100% liability. All we ever wanted was our £100 excess returned and an acknowledgment that we were not in any way to blame. We got that and my insurance company got their £1000+ repair costs paid by the third parties insurance thanks to our persistance and hard work in providing detailed maps, photos and plans of the scene.

So I would say stick at it and if you are 100% convinced you are in the right insist on taking it all the way to court.
insurers say the daftest things - concrete
Hello keasden, thanks for your comments. Similar situation except the truck was going off at 1 o'clock and I was going 360, hence being on the inside lane. The truck simply cut the corner off and entered my lane. I now have my legal assist on the case and like you I am determined to see it through on principle. I take yorkies point, but it seems that most people these days plead 'not my fault' even when it clearly is. Of course it is difficult to prove, but I think I have a better than even chance and I am going to do it. The truck itself wasn't long, an average 7.5 tonne short wheelbase but the vicious steel bar arrangement on the rear end did the damage. I am convinced that had that not been there it would have just been a close shave. It is a pity that insurance companies are so lack lustre when it comes to fighting their and my corner. I suppose you have to stick up for yourself in these situations. Thanks to all who commented and I shall let you all know what happens. Concrete
Insurers say the daftest things - the swiss tony
What size was the truck? and the roundabout?
the reason I ask is because the longer the wheelbase on a vehicle the more likely it is to 'cut' across lanes.....
I make it a habit never to be alongside a truck, or those stretch limos on roundabouts and other tight bends.

I think it would be a good idea that people were taught (maybe even try) other forms of vehicle, before getting given a full licence, I have driven/ridden mopeds, motorcycles (faired and naked) many cars of different types (from smart through 1.9turbo petrols to SL55's S classes etc) up to a 7.5tonne box.
Every type needs a different mindset to drive, due to basically the way they handle, accelerate, and stop.

Insurers say the daftest things - L'escargot
It wouldn't even think about whose fault it might have been. I'd just claim on my insurance and let them sort it. It's what I pay them for.
Insurers say the daftest things - cheddar
It wouldn't even think about whose fault it might have been. I'd just claim on
my insurance and let them sort it. It's what I pay them for.


The problem with that is they can be inclined to settle knock-for-knock justifying an increase to both the insured premiums so you end up paying them even more when you might not be liable.
Insurers say the daftest things - concrete
Hi cheddar, you are right, they seem to take the easiest line of resistance. Well not this time and not with me. Like keasden I intend to fight my corner. Latest thing is they have put the claim 'on hold'. This is because the policy is less than month old and they now want to see proof of no cliams record from previous insurers. When offered this proof when I took the policy out, unusually they did not wish to see it. So a few days before the incident I destroyed the old policy documents. Now I have to go cap in hand to previous insurer for new documents. Meantime I have a hire car and a repairer doing his nut. I have examined my policy carefully and there is no mention of any restriction if a claim is made within the first month. As far as I am concerned I have a contract with them and they are now in breach. If they do not get their act together soon I will set their own legal assistance team onto them. Poetic justice. All these delays are costing someone money, I am determined it's them. Concrete
Insurers say the daftest things - Andrew-T
>I will set their own legal assistance team onto them.<

That doesn't look like the most logical way to the best result? Some conflict of interest?