Skink Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 My sister in law was in a car crash yesterday - a drunk fell into the road in front of her and she swerved into an other car to avoiding killing the bloke her insurance are saying it was her fault (and therefore refused to give her the courtesy car on her policy) but thay are also saying she will have to pay her excess and loose her no claims as there is no other party for them to claim off seems a bit unfair to me - any one got any suggestions? Or can they really do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Pay her excess and lose no claims and presumably make a claim and get her car repaired/replaced? Whats the problem? Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skink Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 the problem is she did nothing wrong, the drunk caused the accident now she cant get to work now she doesnt have a car - it looks like a write off now she has to borrow money to pay for all of this and it want her fault! put yourself in her shoes, driving home from work someone causes a crash and then you have to pay hundreds of pounds out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 the problem is she did nothing wrong, the drunk caused the accident now she cant get to work now she doesnt have a car - it looks like a write off now she has to borrow money to pay for all of this and it want her fault! put yourself in her shoes, driving home from work someone causes a crash and then you have to pay hundreds of pounds out But she swerved and hit another car, they'll obviously say it was her fault and she should have performed an emergency stop blah blah blah Since shes hit the other car too, if hers is a write off I imagine theirs is too? Its crap but they can't exactly go chasing the drunk and ask him to pay for new cars for both parties can they? Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 She pays. Insurance is there so that if an accident happens you can claim to replace the car. She will claim so she loses her no claims and agreed to pay the excess when she signed up to the insurance. At least she won't have pay for two new cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 She can sue the drunk if she can find him. Reality is its unfair but one of those things sadly. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Technically it is her 'at fault' as she drove into the other person. However it's a very Macabre situation as it implies for her to not be 'at fault' she should have hit the man. No win situation I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 But she swerved and hit another car, they'll obviously say it was her fault and she should have performed an emergency stop blah blah blah Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android This is correct. She is at fault in the eyes of the law, she should have slammed on the brakes and hit him. That's the procedure taught in driving lessons as swerving (which I know is instinctual) puts others at risk. Of course then the drunk would have been banging an injury claim in and to avoid a court case her insurance would have paid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 This is correct. She is at fault in the eyes of the law, she should have slammed on the brakes and hit him. That's the procedure taught in driving lessons as swerving (which I know is instinctual) puts others at risk. Of course then the drunk would have been banging an injury claim in and to avoid a court case her insurance would have paid out. Wouldn't being drunk have affected the success of any such claim? Or are you absolved of all fault in this condition..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Wouldn't being drunk have affected the success of any such claim? Or are you absolved of all fault in this condition..? The pedestrian is always right, regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.