T
traceyc
Guest
I will try and make this brief as it can get very long winded but my friend was in an accident 2 years ago, she and her boyfriend and friend were picked up by her father late at night in a two seater jeep. Her friend sat in the front and she and her boyfriend sat in the back (no seats), it was a windey road and they met a large lorry coming in the opposite direction, he was driving too fast for the road and was also over the white line and so the father tried to pull in but the two vehicles collided. Father had a small injury, passenger thankfully ok but the two in the back were thrown out of the jeep and had pretty serious injuries (both thankfully ok now). Both drivers are saying they are not at fault, police came out and their report states that the lorry was about a foot over the white line.
We found out that both drivers are insured with the same insurance company!! The jeep got replaced as did the lorry but now its down to the injury claim. The jeeps insurance specifically excludes anyone who is not sitted in a seat so no claim is to be made from them but solicitors have been involved and compensation is trying to be claimed off the lorry drivers insurance (same company) The lorry driver isnt injured.
My friends solicitor is telling them not to go to court as they could lose and end up paying lots of money and/or they could be looking to her father for compensation of the money already paid out. This is what i dont understand.
The police are more or less stating that the other driver is at fault but firstly why would the same insurance company want to take each other to court? and if it was settled on a 50/50 basis (which is what I feel would be the worst outcome for them) then why would either the courts/other insurance company/MIBI seek compensation from her father???
I understand that maybe the solicitor is trying to say that as her father was 50% responsible (should it be 50/50) then she could take her father to court for more compensation? But why would she want to do that? Surely the courts cannot force her to take such action.
The reason I am asking for some advice is that she and her boyfriend are now thinking of just leaving it be. Its not like they are trying to get loads of cash, all they want is for their hospital bills and lost wages to be covered, thats all.
I hope someone can give me some advice to pass on and i hope that this hasnt been too long for you.
We found out that both drivers are insured with the same insurance company!! The jeep got replaced as did the lorry but now its down to the injury claim. The jeeps insurance specifically excludes anyone who is not sitted in a seat so no claim is to be made from them but solicitors have been involved and compensation is trying to be claimed off the lorry drivers insurance (same company) The lorry driver isnt injured.
My friends solicitor is telling them not to go to court as they could lose and end up paying lots of money and/or they could be looking to her father for compensation of the money already paid out. This is what i dont understand.
The police are more or less stating that the other driver is at fault but firstly why would the same insurance company want to take each other to court? and if it was settled on a 50/50 basis (which is what I feel would be the worst outcome for them) then why would either the courts/other insurance company/MIBI seek compensation from her father???
I understand that maybe the solicitor is trying to say that as her father was 50% responsible (should it be 50/50) then she could take her father to court for more compensation? But why would she want to do that? Surely the courts cannot force her to take such action.
The reason I am asking for some advice is that she and her boyfriend are now thinking of just leaving it be. Its not like they are trying to get loads of cash, all they want is for their hospital bills and lost wages to be covered, thats all.
I hope someone can give me some advice to pass on and i hope that this hasnt been too long for you.