Hello. I'm hoping for your opinion on this situation:
BACKGROUND
------------------
I was attempting a 3 point turn. I had driven forward and was reaching for reverse gear when a car comes round a bend and drives into my stationary car. The other car was leaving a 40mph stretch of road and entering a 30mph stretch. The other driver initially apologised, and then decided to try to blame me. There were no independent witnesses.
The insurance company is trying to hold me 100% liable for a variety of reasons that seem to change over time:
1) Because my duty of care was greater than the other driver's who had right of way. I disputed this by arguing that both drivers have a duty of care. I ensured that the road was clear before starting the manoeuvre.
Next reason:
2) "I was attempting a dangerous manoeuvre". I disputed this by comparison with other similar manoeuvres that are carried out on a daily basis on that stretch of road. Farm vehicles slowly exiting the farm, drivers stopping in the road in order to reverse into their drives, etc.
Next reason:
3) "With reference to Barna v. Hudes". I disputed this because although there was a bend nearby, neither driver's vision was obstructed. The other driver had 75m to react which is 2-3 times the typical stopping distance in the Highway code.
Most recent reason:
4) By suggesting that "the other driver claimed that I had pulled out immediately in front of him, giving him no time to respond". I've not had sight of the other driver's actual statement, so I don't know what he actually said. The insurance company then advised that in cases where there are no independent witnesses and the drivers dispute the facts, their policy is to support the driver who has "right of way" and to hold the other driver 100% liable.
The only constant is that the insurance company continues to claim that I am 100% responsible. Their reasons keep changing, and they haven't put anything meaningful in writing.
My counterclaim that the other driver was not paying due care and attention and was negligent in being unable to stop, has so far been ignored.
The insurance company represents both parties, so they have no financial incentive to support my position.
So far I have escalated to the company's internal complaints procedure asking for them to review their position and to provide full information. I am prepared to escalate further if appropriate.
NOW FOR MY QUESTIONS
--------------------------------
1) Are the insurance company justified in in holding one party 100% responsible based on "right of way" when the facts are in dispute, and with no way to prove either version of events? What is their basis for this position? If they are not justified, how best to dispute their position?
2) What would you do in my position?
3) What do you think is a realistic outcome?
Sorry if my questions are a bit naive. I'm new to this situation, to to forums in general, and to this forum in particular.
Thanks very much for listening!
Wally
BACKGROUND
------------------
I was attempting a 3 point turn. I had driven forward and was reaching for reverse gear when a car comes round a bend and drives into my stationary car. The other car was leaving a 40mph stretch of road and entering a 30mph stretch. The other driver initially apologised, and then decided to try to blame me. There were no independent witnesses.
The insurance company is trying to hold me 100% liable for a variety of reasons that seem to change over time:
1) Because my duty of care was greater than the other driver's who had right of way. I disputed this by arguing that both drivers have a duty of care. I ensured that the road was clear before starting the manoeuvre.
Next reason:
2) "I was attempting a dangerous manoeuvre". I disputed this by comparison with other similar manoeuvres that are carried out on a daily basis on that stretch of road. Farm vehicles slowly exiting the farm, drivers stopping in the road in order to reverse into their drives, etc.
Next reason:
3) "With reference to Barna v. Hudes". I disputed this because although there was a bend nearby, neither driver's vision was obstructed. The other driver had 75m to react which is 2-3 times the typical stopping distance in the Highway code.
Most recent reason:
4) By suggesting that "the other driver claimed that I had pulled out immediately in front of him, giving him no time to respond". I've not had sight of the other driver's actual statement, so I don't know what he actually said. The insurance company then advised that in cases where there are no independent witnesses and the drivers dispute the facts, their policy is to support the driver who has "right of way" and to hold the other driver 100% liable.
The only constant is that the insurance company continues to claim that I am 100% responsible. Their reasons keep changing, and they haven't put anything meaningful in writing.
My counterclaim that the other driver was not paying due care and attention and was negligent in being unable to stop, has so far been ignored.
The insurance company represents both parties, so they have no financial incentive to support my position.
So far I have escalated to the company's internal complaints procedure asking for them to review their position and to provide full information. I am prepared to escalate further if appropriate.
NOW FOR MY QUESTIONS
--------------------------------
1) Are the insurance company justified in in holding one party 100% responsible based on "right of way" when the facts are in dispute, and with no way to prove either version of events? What is their basis for this position? If they are not justified, how best to dispute their position?
2) What would you do in my position?
3) What do you think is a realistic outcome?
Sorry if my questions are a bit naive. I'm new to this situation, to to forums in general, and to this forum in particular.
Thanks very much for listening!
Wally