Car Accident (HELP)

m8 on 14/09/2014 - 11:51

I got mail today about NRMA speaking on behalf of a person who claims $xxx because of a car crash. Thing is:

  • The car accident occurred over a year ago, i got the mail on friday (which is from NRMA)
  • I've given a police statement indicating that I was not a fault (i was entering a roundabout and a car doing a u-turn from the left didn't have their indicator on that they're doing a u-turn and a collision occurred)
  • Police said insurance would cover it, I'm with third party insurance. I was given a ticket which for some reason decided to cancel itself after i decided to claim against it.
  • They're expecting >$1k

Note:

  • on the police statement, the guy wrote that i said "I misinterpreted the intention of the driver doing a u-turn", will this line screw me up or can I still stand strong with the argument that their indicator was off/cancelled

  • The letter that they sent from NRMA states that there's evidence supporting the claim attached but there isn't.

I thought I might go to you guys and ask for what I can do or what's the best plan to undergo?

Thanks guys, I appreciate anything.

Automotive

Comments

  • Kempe on 15/09/2014 - 20:13

    Have I got this correct?
    YOU were entering the roundabout so the other car was already in it?
    Therefore YOU failed to give way to your right and entered when it wasnt safe?

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 15/09/2014 - 20:47
    +2

    Please everyone stop telling OP to respond to NRMA or get legal advice.

    If he has legit third party property insurance and up to date rego, it needs to be referred directly and immediately to his own insurance company and they will handle it. That's what you pay for.

    Any actions or correspondence with NRMA can potentially void the liability of his own insurance company and he may (likely by the given facts) have to pay up himself.

    • bobbified on 16/09/2014 - 12:17
      +2

      Agreed! All these insurance policies have a clause that says the insured must NOT ADMIT LIABILITY. Where an incident occurs, the insurer will represent the insured (after the issue of whether an excess is payable or not). They have their own teams of legal professionals should it come down to an opinion over whether or not to admit liability. If it has to go to court, the insurance company will supply their lawyers at their expense.

  • bigticket on 15/09/2014 - 21:56
    +3

    With drivers and roundabouts, common sense often flies out the window.

    There seems to be a great onus on the comments here as to whether the other driver indicated or not and its almost impossible to prove either way. In fact its not a major factor in this case. Does that mean anyone in a roundabout without an indicator can be targeted and hit in the front or the back or t-boned and its their fault? Obviously not.

    The rule is simple: give way to all traffic in the roundabout. And not, as some have said here, give way to your right. You give way to your left, to your right and even up and down. That is 'all traffic in the roundabout'. If the OP claims that no indicator was displayed, why would you assume the car is exiting? You would in fact think the opposite or be unsure what the other driver is intending, then would it not better to wait a few seconds to find out? In these situations drivers make decisions in a split second and sometimes get it wrong.

    It's the OP fault and they know it, otherwise he/she would be claiming damages from the other driver a year ago, not waiting all this time and hoping it goes away. So deal with it and either claim through your insurance or out of your pocket after checking the validity of the damages.

    • MattyD on 16/09/2014 - 11:28

      This. The rules don't state that a vehicle approaching a roundabout must "give way to the indicated intention of all traffic already on the roundabout", they say "give way to all vehicles already on the roundabout".

      • Daabido on 16/09/2014 - 22:51

        That is true. Which unfortunately means dealing with the vast majority of people who do not know or do not care how to safely go through a roundabout with the correct signalling. It's like a guessing game.

    • surm on 18/09/2014 - 11:08

      .
      give way to all vehicles already on the roundabout
      .

      How about;

      1) Driver 1 enters the roundabout at 6 o'clock position. At this time, Driver 2 is close to the 3 o'clock position but not yet had entered into the roundabout. ie Driver 2 was not already in the roundabout.

      2) After that, Driver 2 enters the roundabout at 3 o'clock position and hits the Driver 1's car.
      2.1) Driver 2 hits the Driver 1's car's right hand side
      2.2) Driver 2 hits the Driver 1's car's rear

      Who is at fault in 2.1 and 2.2 situations?

      Without witnesses, it is hard to prove who was first in the roundabout. Some cars (like Driver 2 in the above example), do not slow down enough at roundabouts. This is a problem in small 1-lane roundabouts.

      • bobbified on 18/09/2014 - 11:32
        +1

        Is your question stemming from the idea that Driver 1 stop and give way to Driver 2, because Driver 2 is coming from his right hand side?

        In both instances, it'll be Driver 2's fault, since Driver 1 was already in the roundabout and Driver 2 did not give way.

        In addition, if I understand your question correctly, the collision would be occurring at about the 7 or 8 o'clock position. If Driver 1 was already in the roundabout when Driver 2 hadn't even entered yet and they collided at that position, Driver 2 must be travelling quite fast to be able to hit Driver 1.

        • surm on 18/09/2014 - 11:50

          Is your question stemming from the idea that Driver 1 stop and give way to Driver 2, because Driver 2 is coming from his right hand side?

          Yes.

          If Driver 1 was already in the roundabout when Driver 2 hadn't even entered yet and they collided at that position, Driver 2 must be travelling quite fast to be able to hit Driver 1.

          Or, the 'same' collision could have occurred if Driver 2 had been already in the roundabout and Driver 1 entered the roundabout later without giving way. From the positions after the collision, it would be hard to determine which one of these two possibilities happened and who was at the roundabout first.

          In small 1-lane roundabouts (of which the centre circles are as small as 1-2 m), this is a real problem because Driver 2 entering at 3 o'clock can reach 6-7-8 o'clock positions in no time.

          From the positions after the collision, without witnesses, it looks like Driver 1 had not given way to the Driver 2 regardless of how it happened. I wonder how insurance will determine the 'at fault driver'. My guess is that, without witnesses, Driver 1 will be at fault for not giving way. That is why I think 'giving way to right' is clearer and a safer practice than 'giving way to the vehicles already in the roundabout'.

        • bobbified on 19/09/2014 - 19:58

          @surm:

          From the positions after the collision, without witnesses, it looks like Driver 1 had not given way to the Driver 2 regardless of how it happened. I wonder how insurance will determine the 'at fault driver'. My guess is that, without witnesses, Driver 1 will be at fault for not giving way.

          Have to agree with you there… the "at fault driver" would be very difficult to determine and like many accidents with no independent witnesses, it'll be one person's word against the other. The deciding factor tends to be the police report, if one exists. Otherwise, it could go both ways.

          I know for sure that if I ever got into that situation, I'd be scrambling to get details of independant witnesses straightaway (a member of the public that is not known to myself and has no relation).

          That is why I think 'giving way to right' is clearer and a safer practice than 'giving way to the vehicles already in the roundabout'.

          Definitely agree with you on this one too! But the law is written by people who sit in chauffeur-driven cars and probably have no idea how to drive themselves (the rules of this forum prevent me from using more colourful and descriptive words).

  • andyken on 16/09/2014 - 00:30

    OP, dont worry too much, like what others mention, leave it to your insurance (3rd party insurance), the worst case, you pay some excess fee.

  • ChickenTalon on 16/09/2014 - 09:43
    +1

    OP hasn't made it clear if he has CTP - Compulsory Third Party or "3rd Party Property insurance".

    If he just has CTP he's going to have to suck it up and pay, or fight it and probably lose based on his description of the accident. Nothing in a CTP policy will cover damage to another car.

    He was fined for the accident by the poilice who at the time determined he was at fault. The fine was not enforced because of an administrative systems error in the time it took to enforce the fine, not because of a change in the driver at fault. Ignoring the fine also meant that the OP probably lost the chance to challenge it. He's done well enough (through no great work on his own behalf) to at least get out of paying for that.

    I never understand the person who drives without at least 3rd Party Property insurance. Such a big risk. If you rear end a really expensive car you'll be paying for it for years. Sorry to be harsh on the OP, but you sound like the type of fool who would do this and just hope that any problems will go away, they wont, welcome to the real world of being responsible for your actions. I don't wish anyone the pain of learning their lessons this way, but I do hope you learn.

    Then again, if the OP has 3rd Party Property insurance, just ignore my rant, and good on you for being responsible. Refer to your insurer, pay the excess and be happy you had cover, brah.

    for those commenting with no idea about CTP and 3rd party property, this should help:
    http://www.iselect.com.au/car/info/about-car-insurance.jsp

  • cdeep0 on 16/09/2014 - 09:51
    -2

    Don't pay.

    • ChickenTalon on 16/09/2014 - 12:41

      Yep, wait until they make you pay. Genius plan.

  • onlyletters on 16/09/2014 - 10:27
    +1
    1. You can't prove they didn't have their indicator on/off
    2. You're allowed to do U-turns at roundabouts.
    3. You can make an insurance claim upto 6-7 years from the date of the accident.
    4. Everything will be based on the police report at the time, you can make a stat dec and correct it. In this area, best to speak to your lawyer.
    5. Third Party Insurance or CTP insurance? CTP is only used for hospital cover for the person you hit. Their insurance will cover you if you are insured in the same accident. The actual third party insurance will cover you in this instance if you actually had a policy at the time, best to locate the documents then speak to your insurance company, check your excess rate.
    6. If it were me, I would just pay $50 a month until its paid off otherwise they can go jump.

    Correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

  • MattyD on 16/09/2014 - 11:17
    +6

    tldr: Respectfully OP, you're the at fault driver - you failed to give way to traffic on a roundabout.

    The indicator issue removes none of your liability. Had a police officer witnessed the incorrect indication they may have chosen to cite the person (doubtful) but it would remove none of your liability for the collision.

    Give way rules mean just that, and being a good driver is less about our own ability and more about anticipating the lack of others'.

    I suggest you deal directly with your insurer, accept their decision or follow the dispute process, and learn from this: we all make mistakes, and we pay for the consequences. There isn't always someone else to blame for the problems we face.

  • Sirocco on 16/09/2014 - 12:51
    -2

    Not all of us have $1000…

    Seriously, don't reply to the letter and ignore it…. they will send you a couple more letters saying they are taking you to court… but they never will.

    They will stop after a while.

    Have done this before and was never taken to court.

    • bobbified on 16/09/2014 - 13:42
      -1

      Despite all their threats, the insurance company won't necessarily take you to court - it's often easier and cheaper for them to sell the debt to a collection agency who will try and track you down. They sell debts in bulk and sometimes it takes the agency months or years to get to your individual debt, so don't be surprised if an agency calls you one day in relation to the amount… with exorbitant interest and fees added on top!

    • Kaz0551 on 16/09/2014 - 13:45
      +2

      @Sirocco

      Good advice to a point…

      If they are going to pursue it, you will see

      Letter of Demand 1
      Letter of Demand 2
      (maybe) Letter of Demand 3
      Statement of Claim
      Visit from Sheriff

      If it gets to Statement of Claim you really should respond. The next step is default judgement to the claimant and the sheriff to come and seize your property.

  • xdiep on 16/09/2014 - 16:08

    Slightly off topic question here; presuming that the roundabout rule rule is 'A driver entering a roundabout must give way to ANY vehicle in the roundabout' does this include cars going the wrong direction?

    So here's the scenario:
    - Single lane roundabout
    - As you approach the roundabout, you check to your right and no cars are visible
    - You enter the roundabout
    - While entering, you collide head-on with a car to your left
    - The car was fully in the roundabout doing a u-turn to go back the way they came
    - The u-turn wasn't around the roundabout, but just a normal u-turn

    Would both you and the other party be 50% at fault?

    • ChickenTalon on 16/09/2014 - 17:21
      +3

      I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say the car doing the u-turn, given they're effectively driving the wrong way through a roundabout.

  • cantstanzya on 16/09/2014 - 16:30
    +4

    Same thing happened to me many years back.
    Driver on roundabout failed to indicate.
    I entered roundabout and they crashed into my side.
    They initially admitted not indicating.
    10 minutes later their story has changed.
    Had to cop it on the chin in the end.

    Another great one…

    Hadn't had my licence for long, young and ignorant.
    Clown in 4WD with wife and kids in the car tried to overtake me on the grass median strip.
    Clown managed to pass me but then lost control, shot across two lanes, flipped and rolled a few times.
    Cops and ambulance turn up, whole family hurt, clown claims accident was my fault.
    Cops take his side, it was my word against theirs, only other witnesses never stopped.
    I go back next day take photos showing tire marks that proved he was driving on grass for a extended period of time while still in control of his car.
    Insurance didn't care about photos thanks to police report.
    Paying excess was cheaper than fighting it in court.
    Cop it on the chin and pay up.
    Fast forward 6 years later.
    Get a call from insurance.
    Clown and wife taking insurance company to court because they want more money, apparently they damaged their backs.
    Insurance want my photos for their case!

    • ChickenTalon on 16/09/2014 - 17:23
      +7

      I smell a silent auction between the clown and insurance company. Those photos now have some real value.

      Get that excess back plus some!

      • MattyD on 16/09/2014 - 22:21
        +1

        Hahaha CT that is absolute gold. You'll do well in this life I think ;)

        • ChickenTalon on 17/09/2014 - 05:11

          thanks, glad to see you are enjoying my advice.

          Let me know where i can send an invoice.

          Speak soon,
          Chicken

          :)

  • Utopian on 16/09/2014 - 16:38

    I'm under the impression you must claim within a set & reasonable time, like 30 days - Conditions set by the insurance company. Dredging something up from a year ago smells real fishy to me.

    "Oh-yeah, I had an accident 12mths ago"

    "Now you tell us??? Why now?"

  • x0b0k7x on 16/09/2014 - 16:39
    +2

    Sigh, the op sounds like the person that hit my car when i was coming around a roundabout year ago…
    I don't understand why these topic exists, why are people trying to find an excuse or blame others for their own faults.

    I had to cop an excess, probly exceeding what the op is being asked to pay…
    Im yet to get my excess back, bcuz like the op, the other party is not taking fault.

    Just pay it and move on, your fault!
    Maybe ill get my excess back!

    Expensive Lesson learnt,bought a dash cam.

  • bondy28 on 16/09/2014 - 16:44

    MattyD nailed it.

  • ethereal88 on 16/09/2014 - 17:11

    This reminds me why I don't have a car!

  • [Deactivated] on 16/09/2014 - 20:04

    I'm a little confused as to how the accident actually happened.

    Was the car originally coming from his left, went around the round about and then crash into him as he entered it?
    Or did the other car do a U turn before the round about?
    Or did the other car enter the round about as he was already in it?

    I kind of lost interest in the crap fight about CTP or something like that.

  • tonsta on 16/09/2014 - 22:31
    +3

    M8, dont worry, this is normal tactics from insurance companies.

    1. If you have 3rd party property insurance, refer the matter to them, dont waste your time an invest your emotions into this matter.

    2. dont speak to them, dont reply to them, dont invite them to your birthday. you dont have to convince them its your or the other parties fault, thats what a court is for.

    3. whatever evidence they have, they need to tally and file with a court. this has not happened yet, you dont need to respond.

    4. insurance companies operate without emotion, they see you as a $$ value, if the get the feeling you have no $$ or cannot dig out dirty on you, they will offer you a deal.

    5. Court cases cost money, even small cases like yours will run a bill of $500+ to there inhouse legal. Its not worth their time and energy to chase you. Even if they win the 1st stage of the case and prove you were at fault, they need to launch more legal action to recover their few hundred $$.

    6. Everything they do, say and imply is designed to scare you into settling way, way, way, way way before any actual court action. The closer it gets to court, the more likely insurance companies want to settle because the legal bills on there side are starting to rack up. You will notice they will offer you a smaller amount each time they want to settle and the closer the court date gets.

    In terms of legal representation, it will cost you more for representation than what the claim is worth, just bypass is. Also if your worried about court cost allocated to you, dont worry, cost of lawyers etc cannot be awarded in cases this small only the filing fees for the case, which is about $150 all up.Your case will goto small claims tribunal.

    Hope this help a bit.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/09/2014 - 10:47

    Transport departments say you must indicate on a roundabout: http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/top10misund…

    I've yet to find a clear declaration from a relevant legal or government body about which rule is the overriding one with the issue of fault - the any car on the roundabout rule or the indicating rule.

    I would say it's arguable either way and not nearly as clear cut as people are trying to make out.

  • cpan on 17/09/2014 - 12:04
    +1

    I work for an insurance company. Just call your insurance company for advice, Third Party or Comp Insurance, they can still give you advice.

    NRMA will only be working off the information provided by their insured.

    At most if i were you, claim EBO - Each Bear Own Costs

    • MattyD on 17/09/2014 - 14:59
      +2

      He hit a car, not a bear.

    • bobbified on 17/09/2014 - 16:25

      Any decent Claims Assessor will be able to see that an EBO wouldn't make sense in this case.

      NRMA has a pretty strong case against the OP in the form of the Police Report and there is no benefit for them to agree to an EBO settlement.

      The OP (seems) to have not made a claim against NRMA so, regardless, NRMA will not be paying for the damage to the OP's car.

      That is, if NRMA settles for EBO, they will be forking out for their insured's car and not have anyone to recover those costs from. If they pursue the case as the OP being at fault, then they can recover that money from the OP.

      • cpan on 18/09/2014 - 11:50

        The assessor doesnt determine how the damage occurs, they only assess the damage and costings.

        Insurance companies have what is called an "Abandonment" and "Compromise" authorities. In the scheme of insurance $1,000 is not a lot of money. Its worth a shot.

        But yes as HV pointed out being charged will indicate you are pretty much at fault, which legally will give you little chance, however, to obtain a police report means further expenses.

        If you fight hard enough, you'll at least get a reduction..

        • bobbified on 19/09/2014 - 19:49

          The assessor doesnt determine how the damage occurs, they only assess the damage and costings.

          Have to disagree with you there.. I actually had the job of being a Claims Assessor (but for CTP injury claims) previously and it was our job to determine liability first and then assess the level of compensation.
          (Felt a bit bad sometimes - it wasn't always fun to deny liability because there were injured people who couldn't afford to get proper treatment. But there were some really obviously dodgey claims that we all had a field days with - private investigators are used quite often and we get some great videos for the team viewings!)

  • AMLagonda on 18/09/2014 - 11:09

    This thread is no good if the OP wont state if he has contacted his (if he had it) third party insurer about claiming on the accident, then he wouldn't have had to make a post online about it…..

    • bobbified on 18/09/2014 - 11:36
      +1

      The OP hasn't responded for a while - think he's packed his bags and done a runner!

      • ChickenTalon on 18/09/2014 - 13:54
        +1

        or busy working 4th and 5th jobs to pay the NRMA

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join