# Car Accident-need advice?



## valc (11 Apr 2005)

Can I get some advice on what do to here?

On March 16th last, my father was driving towards home along a main road. Another car came out of a housing estate and hit the passenger side of my father’s car. My Dad is not someone who would be speeding – he has been driving over 50 years without a claim. At the time the other driver accepted 100% responsibility and asked for guards not to be called and said she would not go through her insurance. Names and phone numbers etc were exchanged.

The following day my father brought his car to the garage, (where he had only purchased the car a month earlier) to get a quote for repairs. He called the other party with the quote (€2,600) to be told she was now going through her insurance company. The said insurance company contacted my father and in turn made arrangements to go and see the damage caused by the accident, and then gave my father’s garage the approval to go ahead and repair.

My father had a replacement car for the duration of the repairs – approx. 2 weeks (took a few days for the assessor to actually go and see the damage).  Car was returned to my father and everything seemed ok. Then last week my father received a letter from the other party’s insurance company saying the following:

“We fail to understand how you can hold our client responsible for this accident”.

My father rang this insurance company and explained the accident to them. He also told them the other party had accepted responsibility for the accident at the scene. They are denying this and say her story is very different to my father’s. 

Luckily there is a witness to the accident – who 100% agrees with my father’s version of events. Following my father’s phone call, this person filed a report with this insurance company. This may/may not resolve the issue. Even if it does, the amount of stress it has caused my father seems totally unfair. In the last 2 years he has had serious health problems and this is not helping in any way. 

Should I ring this other insurance company myself and read the riot act? Should I get a solicitor to handle it? Even if the witness’ report settles it – which I have no guarantee it will, I feel very angry that the insurance company in question would issue this letter. Why would their assessor give the approval for my father’s car to be repaired if they were not liable. 

Any advice?


tnx
valc


----------



## Vanilla (11 Apr 2005)

Get a solicitor to handle it - if your dad is 100% right ( and if he has an independant witness to back him it sounds very good) then the solicitor will be able to claim their costs from the insurance company- your dad wont be out of pocket.


----------



## Johno (11 Apr 2005)

Agree with Vanilla above and bearing in mind the damage to both vehicles will substantiate your fathers version of the accident.


----------



## Vanilla (11 Apr 2005)

It just goes to show that the guards should ALWAYS be called to the scene of an accident- and bear in mind that in fact one has a legal obligation to do so anyway. Of course, I understand your dad was trying to be helpful to the third party, but people cannot be trusted these days sadly.


----------



## ninsaga (11 Apr 2005)

Was in  a very similar situation about 3 years ago. Do as the other posters say. Get a solicitor & make no further contact with the other driver. Leave it all to the solicitor (use a recommended one). Don't stress over this - a good solicitor will see you right.

ninsaga


----------



## eamonn66 (11 Apr 2005)

write a stern letter demanding immediate settlement. tell them that if they dont cough up asap, you will be forced to involve a solicitor and they will be held liable for this as well as interest on the cost of repair bill . you are also entitled to 10% of the 2600 as compensation for any devaluation caused to your car which has now been crashed.


----------



## Slash (11 Apr 2005)

I agree with eamon66: write a letter yourself and give them 7 days to respond. Then, if they don't settle, get a solicitor involved. It's worth trying, because, once you get solicitors involved, the thing is likely to drag on for months.


----------



## Vanilla (11 Apr 2005)

> once you get solicitors involved, the thing is likely to drag on for months.




I don't agree with this at all- in fact the opposite is likely to be the case- if you involve your solicitor, chances are that one solicitors letter will sort the whole lot out. Once the insurance company see your father is legally represented, they are more likely to want to deal with it quickly to prevent the costs from mounting up- and dont forget they will have to pay the costs involved. It is always better to get a solicitors advice before committing your story to paper also, as you may unwittingly not present the best case for yourself.


----------



## valc (11 Apr 2005)

tnx to all. I think it might be best to get a solicitor on the case rather than either me or my father write to the insurance company. 

Just one more question - Eamonn - is this "entitlement for devaluation" a legal entitlement? A colleague of mine in work said he received this before for a car accident - but I just thought he was lucky to have negotiated it!

tnx again

valc


----------



## Vanilla (11 Apr 2005)

Its for depreciation, and yes, your father is entitled to it.


----------



## eamonn66 (11 Apr 2005)

a solicitor told me before  after i was rear-ended that this was standard practise. i dont think it is really sufficient though as a crashed car unless it has been perfectly repaired can be very hard to sell on. in your case the car was side-swiped which may cause poor door sealing and wind noise which can be very annoying and is really difficult to put right.


----------



## valc (11 Apr 2005)

Eamonn

As far as I know the passenger door was replaced with a brand new door. As the car was only purchased new in February I reckon the garage would have replaced rather than repaired.


----------



## Unregistered (11 Apr 2005)

As soon as you are in an accident - no matter who is at fault you are obliged to contact your own insurer - this is a standard policy condition.  The easiiest way to deal with these cases is to claim from your own insurer and have them pursue the other parties insurer fr full compensation.  When this process in completed your fathers claim will be cleared from his file ( not the actual claim but the amounts paid - this what is looked at by insurers when looking at claims history) - and your father's NCB would not be impacte on.  Also - always contact the guards - no matter what the other driver is asking you to do.  I thinkeven at this stage your father should contact his own insurer and they will be in the best position to offer advice.


----------



## Unregistered (11 Apr 2005)

Hi All have dealt with this nonsense before, people there the worst.

First of all do you really want to go to a solicitor, probably not.
Your own insurer will give you advice but will not act for you unless you claim from your own policy whihc i hope you will not do.

In relation to depreciation this is an amount payable to the owner of a vehicle which has incurred damage, given that the vehicle is damaged is has a lesser standing in the second hand car market than a car of similar year whihc was not involved in an accident.
However depreciation is limited to 20% of the NET repair figure for cars one year old and then 10% for cars up to three/four years old. After that repiar to a vehicle can somewhat be of an improvement so is generaally not given , in court or in the market place.


A solicitors letter will take a while and of course your legal fees will have to be paid by the other side. Now if you are stating that your father is stressed or injured the insurance company will hold off paying unitl they see you total demands.

So write them one letter short and brief, somthing like: 


ABC Insurance Company

Dear Sirs

In realtion to my accident of the (date) i wish to inform you that i am holding your insured (name,reg and policy)at fault. Therefore i enclose my estimate for repair and misc losses for your attention.

If a settlement cheque or admission of liability is not forthcoming within the next 7 days i will hand the matter across to (name of solicitor) who will handle my claim.

Your etc with contact details and mobile attached.

As a matter of interest who is the insurance company at fault here ???

If you do not get a response by day 5 call them, after that it is in the hands of the solicitor. The fact that you might have mentioned stress or injury to them would cause them to backoff on any settlement.So do not sit on this !!


----------



## Dowee (12 Apr 2005)

"It just goes to show that the guards should ALWAYS be called to the scene of an accident- and bear in mind that in fact one has a legal obligation to do so anyway."

I've been in two car accidents (neither where I was driving) and both times the guards were called and all they did when they arrived was get the cars moved out of the way.


----------



## Beenthere (12 Apr 2005)

Hi was hit just after Christmas. The other dirver admitted liability at the scene and no guards were called. He did sign a piece of paper though. He gave me(innocently) a wrong number and when I called the guards with his reg, they would not give out any info, so I had to track him down myself

I provided 3 quotes to him but eventually he went through insurance.
His ins co. rang me and asked that I go to an approved garage, a few days later I collected the car and that was that. I was never asked for payment from anybody at garage or his ins co.. In the interim I had given my own ins. co a heads up.

Can anyone point me to a link/soruce for the depreciation entitlement of 10%
My repairs were est at 5k and even the garage said that it would always be apparent to a trained eye. I feel a bit peeved that his ins co. never mentioned this to me

Best Regards


----------



## elcato (12 Apr 2005)

I think the most important thing to take from this is when you're in an accident try to get a witness there and then even before any guards are called or any liability admitted.


----------



## Vanilla (12 Apr 2005)

> A solicitors letter will take a while and of course your legal fees will have to be paid by the other side. Now if you are stating that your father is stressed or injured the insurance company will hold off paying unitl they see you total demands.


 
Not true- a solicitors letter can be issued same day- and it is normal for insurance companies to pay material damage loss while awaiting details of personal injury claim.


----------



## stobear (12 Apr 2005)

Vanilla, this didn't happen to me, agreed a value of the car which was uneconomical to repair and the other insurance companies next question was ' Is that the full extent of your claim?', when I said no , personal injury, they said it had to be settled in one go, both material and injury claim, waited a further two years to get it sorted. Might have been the exception though


----------



## Vanilla (12 Apr 2005)

Stobear- I'm afraid yours was the exception- where liability is accepted it is common practice for the insurance company to pay out the material loss and for the personal injury to be left to be resolved at a later date. If I were your solicitor, I'd have threatened to sue seperately for the material loss and/or have you take out a loan to pay for the material damage and tell the insurance company I'd hold them responsible to repay loan and interest...


----------



## Unregistered (12 Apr 2005)

Vanilla - Your advice is totally inaccurate and you could cost Stobear money by giving him/her the wrong steer, I have been involved in Litigation for over 12 years, this type of stuff is food and drink to me and I hate it when people give bad advice.

Vanilla "Stobear- I'm afraid yours was the exception- where liability is accepted it is common practice for the insurance company to pay out the material loss and for the personal injury to be left to be resolved at a later date. If I were your solicitor, I'd have threatened to sue separately for the material loss and/or have you take out a loan to pay for the material damage and tell the insurance company I'd hold them responsible to repay loan and interest..."

Vanilla if you were reading the mails you would see that liability has not been conceded !!.
Stobear - Your case is not the exception, just do not mention injury from the outset unless someone actually is injured. Insurance Company will not pay for the property damage as it is a form of admission and it is very rarely that happens unless they are sure that injuries would be uncomplicated. But failure to mention injury or refusal to claim it does not mean that you cannot claim down the road. In any event all injury claims must go through the Government Dept www.PIAB.ie now - Read the site and they have a good help line also, length of time for injury claims has recently changed from 3 to 2 years.

But I would just concentrate on getting you car fixed and pushing the insurance company through a solicitor - it is straight forward enough so any reasonable solicitor should be able to do this. A lot of the time I find that the people in the various call centres with Insurance Company’s get a little bit over their head, most probably frustrated solicitors. 

If you sue separately for each claim you might not get legal costs for both, I have seen this before and judges have berated solicitors for even entertaining such a notion. Why would you sue for a car and then sue for your injury separately if you where at loss for both? Does not make sense as both proceedings are linked to the same accident and both are reliant on liability from the same person.

My advice is to just concentrate on the damage, or let your own insurance company sort out your loss, don’t get caught up with it. Taking out loans etc the idea is to get the car fixed and back on the road not to inflict maximum loss on the other party, this is something we are trying to get rid of in Ireland.

In relation to depreciation there is not link that I know of but you can always ask your own insurance company what they would recommend but I did state it previously. I am always at a loss as to why people in Ireland refuse to talk to their own insurance company’s even though if forms part of your coverage, omitting a claim can allow your insurer to evade cover.


----------



## stobear (12 Apr 2005)

> waited a further two years to get it sorted



Sorry if my post was not clear, the claim in my case has been settled in full


----------



## Vanilla (12 Apr 2005)

> Vanilla - Your advice is totally inaccurate and you could cost Stobear money by giving him/her the wrong steer, I have been involved in Litigation for over 12 years, this type of stuff is food and drink to me and I hate it when people give bad advice.



Hello Unregistered, I'm interested to know which part of my advice you feel is 'wrong' or 'bad' or ' totally inaccurate'. 

To reply to the points you are making:
1. I did read the posts- it seems to me that there is an independant witness who backs up the claimant- in this case if liability is not admitted, it looks as though it will be shortly.
2. Is it not true that where liability is admitted that material loss is settled early and at a later time, the personal injury is dealt with?
3. Why would people sue seperately for material loss and for personal injury? To get the material loss dealt with quickly- in the District Court, and leave the personal injury to be dealt with at a later date. As someone who has been 'involved in litigation for over 12 years' I would have thought this would be obvious to you. Clearly this is only necessary if the insurance company doesnt pay up. However it is more common to have the claimant take out a loan to pay for the material loss and then include the material loss in the overall action where liability is not admitted. I'm afraid I cannot understand your point in relation to a claimant taking out a loan, perhaps you could clarify what you mean.
4. By the way, PIAB only operates where liability is admitted, and so far it appears that where claimants are represented by solicitors they fare significantly better than where they are not.


----------



## Unregistered (12 Apr 2005)

Vanilla - I did read the posts- it seems to me that there is an independent witness who backs up the claimant- in this case if liability is not admitted, it looks as though it will be shortly.---No problem as long as they are independent and clear in mind.

In relation to the material damage issue I speak from experience, it is a tactic by insurance companies to bring claims to a head. People tend to get diverted about their vehicle and that then bring the claim to the fore by way of proceedings. It is very much the rarity insurance company will pay out on the vehicle, if and only if injuries are claimed, otherwise it is straightforward.
If what you are saying is true then why do we not see the European approach of not only paying for the car but for doctors fees, physio, etc..Are they not all special damages along with the car?

Lets be very clear Vanilla, I am taking about damage and injury, you are talking about property damage only, two different matters that require two different solutions.

Vanilla - By the way, PIAB only operates where liability is admitted, and so far it appears that where claimants are represented by solicitors they fare significantly better than where they are not.

If you read the PIAB Act you will see that it is a compulsory requirement for all injury claim to go through PIAB. If after official notification one party refuses liability then PIAB issue a notice to the injured party to proceed through litigation (the old road), in this case it seems that the person's injuries are physiological which is not currently dealt with under PIAB but you still need to get the approval from them to proceed.
I agree that the old route is more profitable than PIAB but that probably says allot more about the type of claimant than the system and the typical claim culture we have grown to love or hate.

Vanilla -  Why would people sue separately for material loss and for personal injury? To get the material loss dealt with quickly- in the District Court, and leave the personal injury to be dealt with at a later date

Now you are really showing your colours, which insurance company do you work for ??

If you went to Court suing separately for your damage, do you not think that the notice of particulars from the opposing side would inquire about injury and that would prejudice you in your future claim. Please Vanilla, LOL, seriously is it AXA or Quinn D


----------



## Vanilla (12 Apr 2005)

*What on earth?*

 Unregistered, quite honestly your post is more than a little confusing, but I'll try to reply to it, point by point.



> it is very much the rarity insurance company will pay out on the vehicle, if and only if injuries are claimed, otherwise it is straightforward.


 
This is totally untrue. It is completely standard procedure that an insurance company will pay out for material loss to a car where there is a personal injury in cases where liability is admitted. When I say material loss for a car, I mean an insurance company will pay for damage to a car, car hire or loss of use of vehicle, towing charges, depreciation and so on. All issues relating to the personal injury including medical fees are left to be dealt with along with the issue of the personal injury. Bear in mind that material loss can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, and by then you may very well still be under going treatment.



> If you read the PIAB Act you will see that it is a compulsory requirement for all injury claim to go through PIAB. If after official notification one party refuses liability then PIAB issue a notice to the injured party to proceed through litigation (the old road)


 
This is what I was referring to- if liability is not admitted, PIAB cannot deal with it.



> in this case it seems that the person's injuries are physiological which is not currently dealt with under PIAB but you still need to get the approval from them to proceed


 
Not true at all, PIAB does deal with physiological injury. It apparently does not deal with psychological injury.



> I agree that the old route is more profitable than PIAB but that probably says allot more about the type of claimant than the system and the typical claim culture we have grown to love or hate.


 
More _profitable_? Isnt the whole point of a personal injury action to put the claimant in the position they would have been if it were not for the accident? So _profit_ doesn't come into it_._ My point is that claimants who have had the benefit of a solicitor acting for them have fared better before PIAB than those who did not have a solicitor acting for them.



> Now you are really showing your colours, which insurance company do you work for ??


 
I hate to disapoint you, but I am a solicitor in independant private practice. And I'm out of the closet!  



> If you went to Court suing separately for your damage, do you not think that the notice of particulars from the opposing side would inquire about injury and that would prejudice you in your future claim


 
I don't want to nit pick, but for someone involved in litigation for over 12 years, I would think you would know that there is no notice for particulars in the district court. Your overall point appears to be that insurance companies rarely pay at the outset for material loss to a car, and leave a personal injury action to be dealt with later even where liability is admitted, but you are absolutely mistaken. I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseum, but it IS common practice. 

By the way, I apologise if this has gone off topic, but in fairness, I could hardly NOT reply to someone saying my advice was 'bad' and 'wrong' etc.


----------



## Unregistered (12 Apr 2005)

OK, try reading the posts before your reponses , or print the post off and have a good read first. Go back to original post and you will see that Liability is not admitted. Now if you want to go off onto another post called when 'liability is admitted' you are free to do so, but for now please stick to the original problem.

"I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseum", neither do i but we will agree to disagree on the issue .Clearly ,  given your war of words approach i doubt very much if you are in the ranks of the legal profession. Come on i have a feeling it is Quinn Direct.

"This is what I was referring to- if liability is not admitted, PIAB cannot deal with it". Yes but you must first go to PIAB , thats the advice, after that you are guided through the process by PIAB or your solicitor. But Solicitors fees as I know are not covered under PIAB if the other side admit liability which can take weeks (90 days) you will have a legal bill at the end YAWN, YAWN.
Do not be advising people to jump in until they know the facts.

I feel i am educating you here Vanilla.................


"Not true at all, PIAB does deal with physiological injury. It apparently does not deal with psychological injury."

Sorry a typo on my part , even i am prone to the odd typo but you did leave out.

In relation to the Notice of Particulars i did jump ahead, but District Court cases can be appealed to the Circuit Court very easily, that is if you wish to wash out the injury claim, you can appeal against the District Court ruling. This is a standard procedure and tactic used by most practices.
YAWN , YAWN ....VANILLA come on is it Quinn Direct


----------



## Vanilla (12 Apr 2005)

*Off topic again*

Hi Unregistered, I've told you who I am, I'm hiding nothing. I don't know who or what you are, and I don't need to, but apparently you have nothing new to add. I'm right, you know I'm right, but you are now only confusing the issue. I was merely trying to advise the initial poster, and despite your claims that my advice was wrong, you have not been able to tell me why you think it is.  Certainly this has gone way off topic, if you have a particular point to make, perhaps it should be made in 'Letting off Steam' where I would be glad to have a friendly debate on PIAB or whatever you would like to discuss.


----------



## Unregistered (12 Apr 2005)

Hello

Yes I have failed to convince you why you were wrong, but I have not failed to point out the logical lawful reasons why i am correct, thats why i said we would agree to disagree.

In relation to your invitation to talk, I would rather not, work to do and money to make for my clinets and I am not in the habit of giving free lectures all day you know you the young and wide eyed. 

Serioulsy though, is it AXA ?

PS You obviously deal with Distrcit Court Motor Claims, better get settled for the long haul then.


----------



## Unregistered (12 Apr 2005)

Apologies if this is a threadjack but the original question is kinda buried by now anyway...

Every year I get a documentation package from my insurer which, somewhere, includes advice on "what to do in the event of an accident".  This tells me to NEVER under any circumstances admit liability.  

Now, I've been in minor entanglements where the other party was at fault and freely admitted it.  Thankfully.  Presumably they weren't with my insurer...

Does every insurer do this?  What's the basis for it?  Would we not have a massive problem if, after every accident, both parties stood around insisting it wasn't there fault, regardless of the evidence?  Are we supposed to depend on the Gardai to adjudicate?


----------



## Unreg2 (12 Apr 2005)

Apropos the contradictions between the advice of Vanilla and 'unregistered' above, I remember a thread on the old ezboard a good while ago dealing with personal injuries claims, which had a poster who said he/she was a solicitor specialising in or frequently dealing with such claims. They had similar syntax and posting style to 'unregistered' here. I'd guess they were the same person. Anyway, my recollection is that in that thread their advice was found to be seriously flawed; many of the statements they made were refuted by well-respected legal AAMers. Does anyone else remember the thread? The woeful ezboard search function won't let me find it, and I suspect it's old enough to have fallen off the edge anyway.


----------



## Unregistered (12 Apr 2005)

Unreg 2 or erm Vanilla , I am still yawning , but yeah I remember that last thread jees i have to say 12 years of Litigation and I was doing it all wrong, duh !


----------



## Unregistered (13 Apr 2005)

I was the same as you Stobear. Had to claim personal and car damage all in one go and it took a futher 2 years to get settled, even after the other party admitted liability.


----------



## 90210 (14 Apr 2005)

[font=&quot]I have to seriously side with original "Unregistered" here , been in two car accidents and on each occasion and I had to wait until the case was settled to get the car sorted.

Luckily enough my own insurance repaired my car as it was not my fault and did not increase my premium although it still took 2 months for the other insurer to pay up.

I guess some solicitors are specialised in certain areas, "Unregistered" undoubtedly this is your speciality, even though you come across as a bit of an Ambulance Chaser ?[/font]


----------



## Unregistered (14 Apr 2005)

You are legally obliged to get the guards once an accident has occurred. If you don't then you're asking for trouble.


----------



## DrMoriarty (17 Apr 2005)

Actually, you're only obliged to call the Gárdaí if someone is injured (however slightly).


----------



## davidoco (14 Sep 2005)

*Re: Hi All have dealt with this nonsense before, people therCar Accident-need advice?*



			
				Unregistered said:
			
		

> ABC Insurance Company
> 
> Dear Sirs
> 
> ...


----------

