# Insurance Law - Collision with 2 reversing cars from their driveways



## TheSphinx (30 Jan 2008)

Hi There

Both me and my neighbour were reversing from our driveways the other morning. On Reversing our cars collided, she claims she was not moving at the time of the impact and beeped the horn. (Me or my house mate did not hear the horn) The Gardai were called, Insurance details were exchanged, The Gardai said that if one member does not accept responsibility for the incident then it is up to the insurance company to decide. I gave the details to my insurance company (which subsequently is the same insurance company) She had said to me that it appears to be a 50 50 case. The rear of my car recieved the damage, and the rear driver side door received the damage to her vehicle. While I was taking the turn from the drive i looked around the front of the car, in this time she appeared to have reversed from her drive.
I accept the 50 50 scanerio as we were both at equal fault, but she won't she believes I am at fault, and wants to get an investigator.
I wish to fix my car myself without going through the insurance, what are your opinions, is it 50 50, am I at fault?

The Sphinx


----------



## DrMoriarty (30 Jan 2008)

TheSphinx said:


> The Gardai said that if one member does not accept responsibility for the incident then it is up to the insurance company to decide. I gave the details to my insurance company (which subsequently is the same insurance company) She had said to me that it appears to be a 50 50 case.


The Gardaí are correct, and I'd say it's practically certain that the insurance company will choose to settle it on a 50/50 basis (which they can do regardless of either of your wishes). That way you'll both lose your NCB and they'll recoup the damages (and perhaps more) by upping both your premiums over the next few years. It's just business.

If the damage can be repaired at reasonable cost without making an insurance claim, you'll probably both save money.

Whether or not you can work out a mutually acceptable arrangement with your neighbour is quite another matter...!


----------



## shesells (30 Jan 2008)

My experience with a same company crash was that the insurance company disagreed with the Gardai as to who was at fault and didn't pay out - which suited them of course. Neither party had comprehensive insurance at the time so it was a 3rd party claim.


----------



## GA001 (30 Jan 2008)

TheSphinx said:


> I accept the 50 50 scanerio as we were both at equal fault, but she won't she believes I am at fault, and wants to get an investigator.
> I wish to fix my car myself without going through the insurance, what are your opinions, is it 50 50, am I at fault?
> 
> The Sphinx


 
Just to echo, 50/50 and I assume she means an assessor as they would not waste their time with an investigator.

Sounds pretty straight forward.


----------



## TheSphinx (30 Jan 2008)

> If the damage can be repaired at reasonable cost without making an insurance claim, you'll probably both save money



My neighbour by the sounds of it wishes to claim of the insurance, can i fix my own car - and she can claim away with her own insurance, or does she have to claim of my own insurance. I don't see why I have to be penalised if i don't wanna make a claim.


----------



## DrMoriarty (30 Jan 2008)

TheSphinx said:


> ...she believes I am at fault


It seems pretty clear that she plans to claim against _your_ policy, not hers! But unless she has very strong (video?) evidence, it's her word against yours. Why would the insurance company take itself to court (and incur expense) when it can just rule 50/50 on the liability and recoup the monies from both of you?

Is the damage to her car likely to cost a lot more to repair than yours? Or is her car a lot newer/more expensive? Could you envisage working out a 50/50 deal on the total repair bill for both cars?


----------



## mathepac (30 Jan 2008)

TheSphinx said:


> My neighbour by the sounds of it wishes to claim of the insurance, can i fix my own car - and she can claim away with her own insurance, or does she have to claim of my own insurance. I don't see why I have to be penalised if i don't wanna make a claim.



She obviously wants to claim off your policy to preserve her own NCB. Are you both comprehensively insured with NCB protection?


----------



## TheSphinx (31 Jan 2008)

> Is the damage to her car likely to cost a lot more to repair than yours? Or is her car a lot newer/more expensive?



It appears that there is more damage to her car then mine, My car is a 08, I have it less then a month, her car is a 04. I would believe my car to be more expensive. 



> She obviously wants to claim off your policy to preserve her own NCB. Are you both comprehensively insured with NCB protection?



I am comprehensively insured with full bonus protection, but just for simplicity and speed I would prefer to repair my own vehicle, and let her claim on her own insurance for the damage to her own car. I cannot imagine why the insurancce wud not agree to that, as they won't be out as much money sue to the fact my NCB is protected.


----------



## ailbhe (31 Jan 2008)

If it is 50/50 then usually you pay for her damages and she pays for yours so you fixing up your own car is of no benefit. If you like you can offer to pay for her damages and then claim for your damage from her insurance.
Alternatively just let it go through the insurance and when you find out how much was paid to her from your insurance, pay it back to the insurance company. That way you should find it easier to shop around as even though your bonus is protected with your current co, a lot of other companies won't take you on.


----------



## RS2K (31 Jan 2008)

How much damage is involved? It might be uneconomic to make an insurance claim, between excesses and loss of NCB. 

Just an aside, but I thought reversing out of a driveway was incorrect. You should reverse into a driveway, and drive out.


----------



## TheSphinx (31 Jan 2008)

i have been talking to the person who is dealing with the claim this morning in the insurance company.  Apparently the other party is adamant that she is not in the wrong, and puts full blame on me, she claims she was stationary at the time of the impact, but why would anyone be in a stationary position in cul de sac, blocking my exit? 
The Insurance company is sending out an investigator, which seems very silly, anyway have to see what way it unfolds...


----------



## aircobra19 (31 Jan 2008)

shesells said:


> My experience with a same company crash was that the insurance company disagreed with the Gardai as to who was at fault and didn't pay out - which suited them of course. Neither party had comprehensive insurance at the time so it was a 3rd party claim.



I don't think this has anything to do with the guards at all. Or their opinions. The insurance company gets an investigator and/or accessor out and they make a decision on it. Usually its which ever is the most cost effective/profitable to the insurance company. In my experience. 

When I had a dispute after an accident the insurance company held it open for 2yrs, the other party tried their hardest to claim of me but I resisted all the way. But I couldn't change insurance, and they charged me as if I'd no no claims and penalised me aswell. Eventually no blame could be proved with way. I hounded them till they closed it. It was decided 50/50 and I didn't make a claim. So I should have been refunded all the excess I had paid to that date, but they found a way of not refunding it.


----------



## TheSphinx (31 Jan 2008)

The Gardai have established that they haven't witnessed the accident so they cannot indicate who is liable. I will fight this all the way, I will NOT accept 100% responsibility, because I know I definitely wasn't, I want to get this sorted as quickly as possible my car is 2008 and it is hateful driving around in it with the rear bumper hanging off...


----------



## aircobra19 (31 Jan 2008)

You can generally horse trade with the insurance company. Tell them you want to get it fixed yourself, and won't be claiming from them. If they stonewall the other party and insist its 50/50 theres nothing the other party can do, as there are no witnesses. Anyone in either car doesn't count. All your insurance company can do is leave the claim open until a defined amount of time has passed. 

I know you don't want to do it. But if you give the neignbour a donation towards her repair it might be less than any ncreased premium come renewal, if the claim is still open. Also theres goodwill with your neighbour to consider. 

If the other parties not that bright, they might thing an offer is an admission of guilt and think that will help them claim off your insruance. But it won't. No witness, no other evidence, theres nothing more can be decided. 50/50.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2008)

TheSphinx said:


> Both me and my neighbour were reversing from our driveways the other morning. On Reversing our cars collided





TheSphinx said:


> I want to get this sorted as quickly as possible my car is 2008 and it is hateful driving around in it with the rear bumper hanging off...


Must've been a collision at some reversing speed to leave the bumper hanging off?!


----------



## dereko1969 (31 Jan 2008)

presumably if you hit into her driver side rear door she was 'there' before you unless she was reversing at some speed so i would have thought it was more your fault than hers. you also admit to looking out the front rather than the back and that both you and your friend heard her horn but didn't stop (unless that was a typo) so it would again seem to me to be your fault.


----------



## TheSphinx (31 Jan 2008)

> you also admit to looking out the front rather than the back and that both you and your friend heard her horn but didn't stop (unless that was a typo) so it would again seem to me to be your fault.



Just before i started to turn to the right I glanced around the front of the car to ensure I was not hitting something in front, (I was thought this while doing driving lessons many years ago, I had passed my driving test first time I might add) NEITHER of us heard the horn being beeped, she never heard beeped the horn.



> presumably if you hit into her driver side rear door she was 'there' before you unless she was reversing at some speed so i would have thought it was more your fault than hers



Both of us were taking a reverse right turn out of our drives. My drive is at the very bottom of a cul de sac, her drive is to my immediate left slightly up from mine, as i was taking a right hand turn i was looking in my right hand mirror and over my right hand shoulder, as she was reversing from my left  and also taking a right into my path. If she was using her mirror as you are supposed to when taking a right hand turn she would have seen me more so then I as she was reversing from my left.



> Must've been a collision at some reversing speed to leave the bumper hanging off?!



My bumper is not exactly hanging off, but it is cracked and scored,  showing white marks against black. I was not driving at speed, but i cannot indicate if she was, all I can state is the my own factual evidence, she wasn't there one second, and there the next.

The investigator is coming out to me on the 12th February, he indicated that it looks like a 50 50 case on paper. but as she isn't accepting this an investigator has to be brought in to resolve it, if there is resolution.


----------



## Ravima (31 Jan 2008)

50/50 does NOT mean that each pay for the other's damage. Nor does it mean that both parties bear 100% of their own losses. It means that both are 50% at fault, therefore the respective insurance companies pay 50% of the damage.

A hits B. Case is 50/50/ A has €1000 damage and B has €500. A's insurers pay B €250 and B's insurers pay A €500. 

if the damage is not much, then being neighbours it would be pragmatic to bear your own losses, that is each party pays for their own repairs. Both must live side by side or in this case literally across the road from each other and there is no point in having an angry neighbour.


----------



## ASFKAP (31 Jan 2008)

You might want to amend your wording when you meet the investigator.
The golden rule at all times is 'if you can't see you can't drive', 


> While I was taking the turn from the drive i looked around the front of the car


it might seem like semantics but, if by your own admission you were reversing back while looking forward then technically you were'nt looking where you were going. I know you're going to come back and say you only looked away for a milli-second, but in that milli-second you're cars collided, what if it had been a child that ran out in that instance? 
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh and unsympathetic and I can honestly say there but for the grace of God goes any one of us, but if both versions of events were read out in a court of law, yours looks more shaky than hers. Just my humble opinion.....


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2008)

ASFKAP said:


> but if both versions of events were read out in a court of law, yours looks more shaky than hers.


We haven't heard her version of events!


----------



## TheSphinx (31 Jan 2008)

> , but in that milli-second you're cars collided



I had virtually stopped while glancing round the front of the car and was still in the driveway, i was looking over my right hand shoulder when the cars collided...  the glancing round the front of the car is insignificant in this case but i wanted to give my version ove event as clear as possible.



> therefore the respective insurance companies pay 50% of the damage.



I was made aware of this today, in this case we have both got the same insurance company, thats why it make sence for each of us to bear our own losses, but unfortunately she wants the investigator and won't accept the initial ruling...


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2008)

This is beginning to read like one of those funny insurance reports that does the rounds every so often...


----------



## ASFKAP (31 Jan 2008)

> We haven't heard her version of events!


 
We have actually....



> she claims she was not moving at the time of the impact


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2008)

We heard the original poster's account of the other party's version of events. Not the same as getting it first hand.


----------



## ASFKAP (31 Jan 2008)

> the glancing round the front of the car is insignificant in this case but i wanted to give my version ove event as clear as possible


I understand, my point is that if you do have to explain it to an investigator you should be make it quite clear in your version that you were AT ALL TIMES watching where you were going as you reversed back. It would then be natural to assume that as you were reversing the other part suddenly shot out of her driveway directly into your path causing you to collide with her......


----------



## ASFKAP (31 Jan 2008)

> We heard the original poster's account of the other party's version of events. Not the same as getting it first hand.


 
Are you suggesting the OP is being 'economical with the truth'?


----------



## Stifster (31 Jan 2008)

If you sit in a witness box and swear that you didn't see her until the collision and she swears that she did and tried to warn by beeping her horn, I could well see a judge coming down in her favour. Then again they could be asleep during evidence, forget who is who, and make an award to the side clearly in the wrong (god bless michael O'Leary RIP)

Remember, there is no such thing as "coming out of nowhere"


----------



## ClubMan (1 Feb 2008)

ASFKAP said:


> Are you suggesting the OP is being 'economical with the truth'?


No. Just pointing out that we have not heard both sides of the story from the respective parties.


----------



## TheSphinx (1 Feb 2008)

> nd tried to warn by beeping her horn, I could well see a judge coming down in her favor



SHE DID NOT BEEP THE HORN... I have said so in the past, I have a witness who says she did not heard nay horn been beeped. Ok for clarification she shot out from her drive, she was not in my view when I was looking in my right hand mirror and looking over my right hand shoulder, as you do when taking a right hand turn. She was also taking a right hand turn into my path.

This is silly repeating myself the whole time, and only causing me a great amount of stress for me anyway. Because I was reversing out of a driveway and onto  an estate road, I consider myself at partial fault, but so was the other party. Everything is speculation and my word against the other parties, what actually happened, I will let the investigator decide. It is just a pity seeing as we our neighbors that we couldn't be agreeable and fix our own cars, which to me makes since, I am not expecting any more or any less.


----------



## ailbhe (1 Feb 2008)

TheSphinx said:


> Hi There
> 
> Both me and my neighbour were reversing from our driveways the other morning. On Reversing our cars collided, she claims she was not moving at the time of the impact and beeped the horn. (*Me or my house mate heard the horn) *The Gardai were called, Insurance details were exchanged, The Gardai said that if one member does not accept responsibility for the incident then it is up to the insurance company to decide. I gave the details to my insurance company (which subsequently is the same insurance company) She had said to me that it appears to be a 50 50 case. The rear of my car recieved the damage, and the rear driver side door received the damage to her vehicle. While I was taking the turn from the drive i looked around the front of the car, in this time she appeared to have reversed from her drive.
> I accept the 50 50 scanerio as we were both at equal fault, but she won't she believes I am at fault, and wants to get an investigator.
> ...


 


You should probably edit your original post as it is the above which has caused confusion.......


----------



## Stifster (1 Feb 2008)

TheSphinx said:


> SHE DID NOT BEEP THE HORN... I have said so in the past, I have a witness who says she did not heard nay horn been beeped. Ok for clarification she shot out from her drive, she was not in my view when I was looking in my right hand mirror and looking over my right hand shoulder, as you do when taking a right hand turn. She was also taking a right hand turn into my path.
> 
> This is silly repeating myself the whole time, and only causing me a great amount of stress for me anyway. Because I was reversing out of a driveway and onto an estate road, I consider myself at partial fault, but so was the other party. Everything is speculation and my word against the other parties, what actually happened, I will let the investigator decide. It is just a pity seeing as we our neighbors that we couldn't be agreeable and fix our own cars, which to me makes since, I am not expecting any more or any less.


 
calm down, calm down.

_She_ said she beeped her horn. If _she_ swears up to that....

I know you will deny hearing but that wasn't my point.


----------



## TheSphinx (1 Feb 2008)

> I know you will deny hearing but that wasn't my point



I don't get your point - How can you prove that she did or did not beep the horn, how can you prove that she did or did not see me. How can you prove that me or my house mate did or did not hear the horn. It is all speculation and here say. I can only tell and swear on the truth no lies, I am telling what is fact, I don't want anything more or less.

My point is two people were reversing out of their drives at the time of the impact, which is against the rules of the road, which I completely accept. We can only go on what is known to be fact.


----------



## Stifster (1 Feb 2008)

TheSphinx said:


> I don't get your point - How can you prove that she did or did not beep the horn, how can you prove that she did or did not see me. How can you prove that me or my house mate did or did not hear the horn. It is all speculation and here say. I can only tell and swear on the truth no lies, I am telling what is fact, I don't want anything more or less.
> 
> My point is two people were reversing out of their drives at the time of the impact, which is against the rules of the road, which I completely accept. We can only go on what is known to be fact.


 
I agree with the 50-50 split.

However.

In a court of law in a civil case it is not a question of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt 100% (the criminal test) but on the balance of probabilities which in terms of ones party's liability can go from 0%-100%.

It would be open to a judge to split liability anyway he wanted say 75-25. It is a swearing match and you takes your chances.

ps it is not specifically aginst the rules of the road to reverse out of your driveway The rules simply say to take care when doing so in the section "Reversing- how to do so carefully"[broken link removed]


----------



## TheSphinx (1 Feb 2008)

If it did  go to civil court in this instance, it could go either way, as i was revering to my right, and also was she, who was reversing from my left, if she was using her right hand mirrors and looking over her right hand shoulder, she would have been in a better position to see me as she was coming from the left and i was turning to the right.


----------



## Stifster (1 Feb 2008)

As i just said in my last post....


----------



## Joe1234 (3 Feb 2008)

In the interest of remaining anonoymous on AAM, if that's what the OP wants then maybe too much personal info has been given out - the OP has an 08 car, which presumably is a Monaghan registration, with a bumper hanging off, he/she lives next door, in a cul de sac, to a woman drivng a damaged 04 car. There are only  a couple of hundred 08 MN cars about at the moment.


----------



## TheSphinx (19 Feb 2008)

Just to bring you up to speed on recent events. The investigator has been around and assessed where the incident took place, he is recommending that both of us fix our own car using our own policy.

The next door neighbor is still rejecting this - the neighbor requires time to think, and seek legal advice.

However if the neighbor peruses a legal case against me, then my neighbor would have to pay for his/her solicitors. My insurance company would get their solicitor to act on my behalf. This could go on for years for something so simple.


----------



## csirl (19 Feb 2008)

> The rear of my car recieved the damage, and the rear driver side door received the damage to her vehicle.


 
I can see where she's coming from when she says its 100% your fault. I'm not saying it is your fault, as on a forum you cannot get the full story.

This can be difficult to explain in print. When you are reversing, the rear of your car becomes the "front" as it is in front of the direction you are driving and your rear window becomes your "windscreen". 

You hit her in the side as her car was straddled across the road. Think if it this way. If you were driving front ways out of your drive and had hit her in the side of her car, you would be at fault.



> I had virtually stopped while glancing round the front of the car and was still in the driveway, i was looking over my right hand shoulder when the cars collided... the glancing round the front of the car is insignificant in this case but i wanted to give my version ove event as clear as possible.


 
Glancing out the front of your car while reversing is no different to looking out your back window while driving forwards down a street - this is why a rear view mirror was invented.


----------



## TheSphinx (19 Feb 2008)

> straddled across the road.



Who said she was straddled across the road, if i was driving front ways and car came from my right came out and never yielded then she/he would be at fault. Was he/she looking around, what speed was he/she going, a half a second can make the difference at where the point of contact between the 2 cars occurred.




> Glancing out the front of your car while reversing is no different to looking out your back window while driving forwards down a street - this is why a rear view mirror was invented.




As i said in my post i yielded as i glanced around the front of my car before taking a reverse right turn, and subsequently looked in my rear window and mirrors before taking continuing with my maneuver.

Your post is irrelevant at this stage but thanks.

Both the insurance company and the independent investigator have agreed on a 50 50 solution. I was giving feedback, as what occurred after.


----------



## csirl (19 Feb 2008)

> Who said she was straddled across the road, if i was driving front ways and car came from my right came out and never yielded then she/he would be at fault. Was he/she looking around, what speed was he/she going, a half a second can make the difference at where the point of contact between the 2 cars occurred.


 
Yes you are correct. But in this case she is claiming she was stationary therefore was already on the road - this may not be true and your version of events could be 100% correct, just pointing out why she may think she is not to blame.


----------

