Dodgy insurance practices - truckle
This is interesting - be careful what you agree to after an accident.

Dodgy insurance practices - mazdaboy
I'm going down the legal road at the moment after a motorway accident a month ago. Briefly, I had stopped in lane three at the end of a tailback and the following driver didn't - at speed. This was despite me applying hazard lights.

I've just heard from my solicitor that he's now alleging that I had 'lost control' of my car and he has 'no option but to hit me'. Complete load of rubbish, and poor thanks for the first aid I gave him at the scene which probably saved him from a life in a wheelchair. The solicitor says that this is a common ploy to muddy the waters to try and reduce liability...still, I'm hoping that the one witness who gave his details at the scene will come forward and be counted.

Four out of five people in my car suffered injuries of varying degrees, and already she's advising that if the injuries lasted less than a week it will be referred back to DAS for immediate settlement. In a bit of a quandary here, as I'm largely in her hands.

Dodgy insurance practices - rtj70
I'm surprised he's trying that as a defence Mazdaboy. Doesn't matter how and why you came to a stop - he should have been far enough back to be able to stop in the distance. Amazing what some people will try.
Dodgy insurance practices - Falkirk Bairn
Whatever the driver who hit you in the rear says- hang on- it might take many months to resolve but when he gets a court summons from your solicitor...............his/her memory will return and he /she will admit liability.

Telling lies on paper is easy, lies in court (perjury etc) brings a sense of reality and the memory floods back.
Dodgy insurance practices - Manatee
There's nothing wrong with an insurer accepting liability quickly; but if true the behaviour in the news story is disgusting.

Sadly, the insured lying is nothing new. In 1985, I was driving across some traffic lights, on green, when somebody reversed into my driver's door. My insurers subsequently received a claim from his on the grounds that I had "driven into their insured's vehicle" according to the version they had received. I am sure it would have been settled 50/50 if I had not been lucky enough to get a signed admission from him at the time of the accident - not sure how he explained that after he had told them it was my fault ;-)

My brother was T-boned while on a roundabout, by a taxi entering it. The driver, who had no passengers, admitted fault there and then. Subsequently he claimed that my brother had lost control and skidded into him, as witnessed by his three passengers, names and addresses provided!
Dodgy insurance practices - b308
If there was personal injury involved, surely the Police were as well... I'm sure from what you said they would back up your story... that would put things beyond doubt, surely?
Dodgy insurance practices - mazdaboy
Yes, police and everything else turned up as the guy had a back injury. I don't think he was interviewed at the scene because of his injuries. The accident report would go on the facts as they find them, and thankfully I took a series of photos at the scene - the damage to both vehicles would bear out the fact that my vehicle was forward facing and took the impact directly from the rear.

I'd recommend everyone to get for themselves as much evidence as they can immediately following an accident to help discredit bizarre claims like this.
Dodgy insurance practices - woodster
The Police attending puts nothing beyond doubt. They're not there to confirm injury or indeed the mechanism of injury. Even the medical people can be stumped with back pain i.e. whether it's there or not, whether it's real or put on.