Rear Ended by Car but Other Driver Not Claiming Responsibility (Everyone Has Comprehensive Insurance)

LTsuska on 03/01/2018 - 15:51
Last edited 04/01/2018 - 12:06 by 1 other user

Hi Ozbargainers,

My mother got Rear Ended by another car (another lady who lives on the street) whilst waiting (stationary) at a T-intersection (to turn right). The woman initially claimed responsibility (we both have comprehensive insurance) however her friend and ?neighbour gave false testimony saying that my mother was reversing and hit her car and now the woman is claiming the same thing to her insurance.

Their insurance company is now saying that we are at fault.

What should we do. We have already contacted the police and also spoken to our insurance company who are not helping.

Edit: Thank you all for your opinions and comments. We have contacted out insurance company again and they said they will contact the repair company to get the photos and evidence, they might be able to tell from the damage who is at fault. I really hope this will be good enough. Will be installing dash-cam in our cars from now on.

Automotive

Comments

  • loulou1 on 03/01/2018 - 15:52
    +7

    Whirlpoolers?

    • Tsuska on 03/01/2018 - 15:54
      +2

      apologies - I was going to post this on whirlpool but thought i'd train out ozbargain first. My bad.

      • serpserpserp on 05/01/2018 - 18:33
        -1

        Please next time post on WP, this place doesn't need more garbage posts like these.

  • kipps on 03/01/2018 - 15:56
    +30

    You both have comprehensive insurance. Lodge your claim. What the other side’s insurer says means nothing. It’s what yours says that actually matters. Sounds a bit unbelievable to say she was reversing at a T intersection. Hold your ground.

    • djkelly69 on 03/01/2018 - 16:02
      +1

      To play devil's advocate - what if mum drove too far into the intersection (ie. over the line) and decided to move back behind the line?

      I see this probably a couple of times a week, so not that unbelievable.

      • kipps on 03/01/2018 - 16:03
        +16

        Then the velocity of the impact would be minimal at best. Quite different to being rear ended.

        • Tsuska on 03/01/2018 - 16:12

          Everything is repaired now but I'm sure the repairers kept their damage photographs and assessment as well so if an investigation is needed I hope that will be able to prove that is the case.

          @djkelly69: Yes i thought that could be possible but that's not what happened - and I believe what my mother's said.

        • Ozpit on 04/01/2018 - 09:19
          +7

          The car has ALREADY been repaired???? Without going through your mother's insurer? Something weird here. Your mother's insurer should be handling this whole affair.

        • Avacardooo Rayy Mee on 04/01/2018 - 11:32

          @Ozpit:

          Yep im thinking the exact same thing. something fishy going on.

        • Tsuska on 05/01/2018 - 10:34

          @Ozpit: The car has ALREADY been repaired???? Without going through your mother's insurer? Something weird here. Your mother's insurer should be handling this whole affair.

          I don't know about the other party's car but my mother's car is repaired going through our insurer. Our insurer have informed us that they are now investigating the situation and will be reviewing the photographs and the repairer's '?notes'. I assume they will investigate both our repairer and the other party's one (assuming they have gotten their car fixed).

      • Cyphar on 04/01/2018 - 12:43
        +20

        To play devil's advocate - what if mum drove too far into the intersection (ie. over the line) and decided to move back behind the line?

        Yep this happened to me. Person with L plates crossed the line and we all moved up. Last second she decided to reverse back straight in to my van w/roo bars. Completely crumpled her parents boot, only a slight dint in my bars. We exchanged details and I didnt think much of it. Advised my insurance company and didn't bother chasing up the dint, however 3 weeks later, get a call saying that they blamed me. I told them to (profanity) off and give me an email address. I then emailed them the dash cam footage of it. I then had the roo bar fixed at their cost as a result.

        • liquid metal on 05/01/2018 - 13:06
          +2

          Such (profanity) should end up in court where you then can show the dashcam footage and hope they have to give their statement before you.

        • TheOneWhoKnocks on 05/01/2018 - 22:28

          Very satisfying to read that. Just one of the many reasons to get a dashcam.

        • smoothymcmellow on 09/01/2018 - 09:06

          I once witnessed a car in this exact scenario blocking a tram, tram rang bell, person panicked and reversed into tram and car behind them…

    • [Deactivated] on 04/01/2018 - 12:29

      I got hit by someone who reversed after stopping at traffic lights once. They changed their mind and instead wanted to take the left turn lane (and they were only half in the lane to start with as they clearly had some trouble making up their mind in the first place). I beeped the horn by they were deaf. My insurance sorted it out, don't think they denied it.

      Always, even if not at fault, indeed especially if not at fault. Get your insurer involved THE SAME DAY as the accident. Otherwise it looks like you were at fault.

  • tomleonhart on 03/01/2018 - 15:59
    +24

    Sorry to hear that but this is when a dash cam pays for itself many times over

      • kipps on 03/01/2018 - 16:04
        +15

        You are so wrong. Where did you get this understanding of the law from?

        • kipps on 03/01/2018 - 16:11
          +43

          @jimbobaus: speaking as lawyer, you have no idea what you are talking about.

        • kipps on 03/01/2018 - 16:14
          +36

          @jimbobaus: the rules of admissibility of evidence in Court are quite different to whatever policies the insurance companies might adhere to.

          The biggest fights about admissibility of video recordings are often about whether they were illegally obtained. If it is of a public situation where there is no expectation of privacy then provided authenticity is proven that video clip will most likely be admissible.

        • bobbified on 03/01/2018 - 16:15
          +20

          @jimbobaus:

          Care to cite some specific cases?

          I used to work for a major insurance company too and always used footage of people who claimed that they were injured in car accidents. We obviously didn't seek permission from the person we were filming.

          In a public place or a place that can be seen from a public place, there is no expectation of privacy.

          The only time the usage of the footage was questioned was if there were doubts of its authenticity.

        • dufflover on 03/01/2018 - 19:04
          +2

          @jimbobaus: > In Australia you need consent (even if its implied , such as entering this building you consent to being filmed) in order to film another party. Unless you have the express written consent of the other party the footage will not be usable in court.

          This sounds contradictory to the very basic law (or lack of) of privacy in public in Australia. As someone who used to sit around photography boards a lot the thole photographed in public thing is a common discussion and the basic jist is in public you have no right to privacy (ofcourse don't be an ass about it). I mean I haven't checked AUSTLII or anything like that but consent shouldn't have anything to do with it I would've thought.

        • Donaldhump on 03/01/2018 - 19:19
          +21

          @jimbobaus: sweet so if I murder you tonight and it’s picked up on cctv it can’t be used because I never consented…

        • burningrage on 03/01/2018 - 20:50

          @jimbobaus:

          I am so sorry but you are so wrong.

        • picklewizard on 04/01/2018 - 00:14
          -3

          @jimbobaus: You claim you worked in insurance and know so much about the claims process, yet you started this thread, what's up with that?

        • Tnetennba on 04/01/2018 - 08:20
          +1

          @picklewizard: he isn't the OP of this thread

        • Cyphar on 04/01/2018 - 12:45

          @jimbobaus:

          In Australia you need consent (even if its implied , such as entering this building you consent to being filmed) in order to film another party.

          No you don't. This has been discussed time and time again with the popularity with drones and each time, it's been established that consent to film isn't necessary

        • picklewizard on 04/01/2018 - 17:05

          @brezzo: Oh, fail. Sorry guys :)

        • Zondor on 05/01/2018 - 09:16

          @jimbobaus: Wrong, how do you think today tonight harass so many people on video.

          Pretty sure it would fall under street photography, which means you can take photos as long as it isn't on private property.

      • djkelly69 on 03/01/2018 - 16:05
        +1

        Interested in seeing a source for this?

      • thetrain on 03/01/2018 - 16:07
        +4

        What!?
        Where did you get this information?

        I recently had a claim made against me by Allianz in a collision, after I sent them dashcam vision they ruled against their own client.

        • thetrain on 03/01/2018 - 16:14
          +4

          @jimbobaus: Can you link a AUSTLII case.

          Slater and Gordon seems to suggest dashcam footage is admissible.

          https://www.slatergordon.com.au/blog/dashcams-prove-popular-…

        • kipps on 03/01/2018 - 16:21

          @jimbobaus: reasons for decision ought be in writing and an insurer would be delinquent in simply citing the video footage for reaching a conclusion. This is not because the video clip is inadmissible but rather so the reasons stand on their own.

        • resubaehtgnolhcs on 03/01/2018 - 17:29
          +10

          @jimbobaus: it somewhat scares me that you were assessing claims…

        • dizzle on 03/01/2018 - 19:02
          +2

          @resubaehtgnolhcs:
          I would assume he used the footage when it helped them, and stated that it was inadmissible when it wouldn't help them. Whatever they can do to get money from the other party or thier own client.

        • bobbified on 04/01/2018 - 08:50
          +4

          @resubaehtgnolhcs:
          Makes me wonder how many claimants have been unfairly screwed by this guy!

        • bobbified on 04/01/2018 - 09:45
          +3

          @whooah1979:

          Thanks for the links - he's never been able to backup what he's said, yet keeps posting the same rubbish believing he's correct! lol!

          I think I'll stop right here before my comment is classed as a Personal Attack!

        • ankor on 04/01/2018 - 20:50

          @jimbobaus:

          I also used to work for a major insurer and we dealt with claims all across the east coast. I still work in insurance now but as a lawyer. I can say on behalf of every debt and recovery lawyer who does crash-n-bash in Australia that you are flat out wrong mate.

      • Bluberry on 03/01/2018 - 16:17
        +3

        What??

        As far as i am aware you only require consent in a private place. Consent is not required in a public place. Roads count as public places.

      • whooah1979 on 04/01/2018 - 08:34
        +1

        the footage can not be used unless you get the consent of the other person who was filmed.

        this link has been around for years and is kept up-to-date based on changing legislation.
        http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

      • idonotknowwhy on 04/01/2018 - 09:39

        Even if this were true, the front-facing dashcam would not be filming this scumbag (no permission required) and would prove that the car was stationary at the time of impact.

        • ankor on 04/01/2018 - 20:59
          +1

          It isn't true.

          R v Read [2017] NSWDC 322 at paragraph 20 - dashcam footage used by the trial judge in a NSW District Court Decision this year.

          Police v Holer [2016] SASC 187 at paragraph 3 - dashcam footage reviewed there as well by the South Australian Supreme Court in 2016.

          @jimbobaus is so wrong it should be criminal.

        • idonotknowwhy on 05/01/2018 - 07:48

          @ankor: I figured. Just wanted to knock the argument down with pure logic ;)

      • FeedingTheSnail on 04/01/2018 - 15:24
        +2

        I'll remember this one when I run a red light camera. Cheers!

        • idonotknowwhy on 05/01/2018 - 07:49

          LOL. I might rob a bank, no need for a ski mask!

      • Jackkkkkk on 05/01/2018 - 15:25

        You know less than Jon Snow

  • djkelly69 on 03/01/2018 - 15:59
    +20

    Assuming it is not true - deny, deny, deny.

    Given the other lady was behind, the onus is on her to prove she is not at fault. A verbal statement from a random friend/neighbour holds little weight.

    Be very firm with the insurance company in stating what happened, and also in advising them that what is claimed did not happen.

    • ESEMCE on 03/01/2018 - 16:12
      +1

      Bingo.

    • Tsuska on 03/01/2018 - 16:14
      +1

      Yes definitely denying it for sure. It's a horrible feeling being blamed (or for a loved one to be blamed) for something they didn't do due to false testimonies and lies. It absolutely ridiculous.

      • kipps on 03/01/2018 - 16:26

        You keep saying testimony. Has a stat dec or affidavit been taken?

        • Tsuska on 03/01/2018 - 16:52

          I don't think so. Maybe I'm using the term incorrectly. Just got an email from the other party's insurer saying that we were at fault.

        • djkelly69 on 03/01/2018 - 20:05
          +2

          @Tsuska: was this email to you or your insurer?

          They should not be emailing/contacting you directly when you have an insurer involved.

        • Tsuska on 04/01/2018 - 12:07

          @djkelly69: They should not be emailing/contacting you directly when you have an insurer involved.

          Point taken. We will contact our insurer. We are paying them after all.

        • Musing Outloud on 05/01/2018 - 13:31

          @Tsuska: Send that email to your insurer. The other party and their insurer are only trying it on.

          In my case I was sent a request to attend court some time after an accident that was deemed my fault. I sent it to my insurer and they handled it. The other party had a $25k loan on a $12k car. My insurer reimbursed them $12k but they weren't happy. Despite all advice they insisted it went to court and they lost. Magistrate quite unimpressed.

          The agreed insured value is key. Otherwise we'd have Barina's driving around insured at Ferrari values.

  • charzy on 03/01/2018 - 17:28
    +2

    Question: Are you both from the same insurance company? I heard instances of insurance companies saying that each person is at fault if they are both claiming on the same insurer.

    I had a driver reverse into me. He accepted liability on the spot, few days later my insurer called me to say a claim was made against me. I mentioned I had dash cam footage, 5 mins later I got a call back saying the other party took liability. I didn't have to upload the video.
    Take what you will, but be prepared if you need to submit said dashcam footage (I actually did have footage but didn't mention it to the other guy seeing he was already accepting liability on the spot).

    • kipps on 03/01/2018 - 19:48
      +2

      Good point. Insurers try all sorts of stunts to avoid paying. Remind your insurer that the duty of good faith runs both ways and that if they don’t wish to comply that you will take the complaint to FOS. If the insurer’s conduct is amounting to misleading & deceptive conduct I would also look into reporting it to ASIC & ACCC.

    • bobbified on 04/01/2018 - 01:12
      +1

      I had a driver reverse into me. He accepted liability on the spot, few days later my insurer called me to say a claim was made against me.

      This actually happens a lot. At the time, people genuinely do feel sorry when they cause an accident and they willingly admit fault if there is

      When they get home, their friends and family will try and convince them to say it's not their fault. Or when they realise how much it's going to cost etc. and they end to telling a whole different story to their insurer.

      • FutureTech on 04/01/2018 - 07:29

        Sounds to me that you need to have the other drivers admission of guilt in writing on the spot lol

        • bobbified on 04/01/2018 - 07:58
          +3

          Sounds to me that you need to have the other drivers admission of guilt in writing on the spot lol

          Not my accidents personally. I was a claims assessor before.

          Getting a written admission of guilt at the time is not practical for a number of reasons. One of those being that their own insurer may deny their claim on that basis (standard clause in the terms and conditions). If their insurer denies the claim, both parties may be worse off. (ie, may need to sue the now-uninsured driver in court for damages).

        • nith265 on 04/01/2018 - 11:02
          +1

          @bobbified:
          yep thats right - standard in all car insurance is that you must not admit liability no matter what or they may deny your claim.

          That’s not to say that can't simply confirm the facts as you remember them. You can say “Yes I was reversing my car and came into contact with another car”, you can’t say “It’s all my fault, I caused the accident by reversing into you”.

          Reason being your insurance might find a legal way of diminishing your responsibility for an accident, obviously their ability to do this is weakened if you’ve already stated the whole thing was your fault.

    • Musing Outloud on 05/01/2018 - 13:40
      +1

      I have found many people who are nice to your face, turn into absolute (profanity) once they have to claim on insurance.

  • dji1111111 on 03/01/2018 - 17:42
    +2

    Given that the damage was to the rear of the car, I would think the onus is on them to prove that your mother reversed into them.
    They do have a BS witness statement to support their claim, but don't think that's be all and all?
    So many scums out there who won't accept responsibility for their mistake. I think it's very common these days for the at-fault-party to do a backflip or make a false account of the accident. Be vigilante and take as much evidence as you can at the time of accident, including securing witness statements.

    • Wiede on 03/01/2018 - 20:35

      Agree! Hire a bikie vigilante :D

    • bobbified on 04/01/2018 - 08:03
      +1

      They do have a BS witness statement to support their claim, but don't think that's be all and all?

      Unfortunately, in the absence of any other clear evidence (esp in cases where it's one person's word against another), independent witnesses, assuming their stories are consistent, become very powerful and often become the "decider".

      Good thing in this case is those witnesses don't sound very independent, but their statements still mean something.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/01/2018 - 12:36
        +1

        Basically, if the witness is willing to, under threat of perjury, make that statement in court. It counts for a lot. Basically, you have to get them to back down with the knowledge of the fact that they could go to jail if the evidence they are lying is found (eg someone finds some CCTV / a dash cam). If no such evidence exists and they're willing to stand by their claim in court, you have no chance.

  • capslock on 03/01/2018 - 17:50

    Don't most people only have forward facing dash cams?

    • AdosHouse on 03/01/2018 - 18:07
      +11

      True, but the camera will show you had no reverse movement at the time of impact. So hopefully the datestamp on the camera is correct.

      • sickburn on 04/01/2018 - 15:19

        If if you record audio, the sound of the impact, and possibly expletives.

  • hawkeye on 03/01/2018 - 19:22
    +1

    Why do police use video shop footage to catch murderers and rapist in late night bar stalking and councils have millions of dollars invested in street cameras if none of that was admissible by the defendant.

  • [Deactivated] on 03/01/2018 - 21:50
    +3

    Dashcam.

    Because people are scum.

    • insular on 05/01/2018 - 16:20

      *most

  • kaleidoscope on 04/01/2018 - 00:20
    +1

    I hope you get justice. These kinds of incidents are good examples to have even a simple dashcam installed in the car because like someone else mentioned in the comments "people are scum".

  • Tnetennba on 04/01/2018 - 08:23

    This is up to your insurer to deal with. That's literally what you pay them for. Give them all the facts, let THEM talk to the other insurer and make an assessment. You should not be talking to the other insurer.

  • CLoSeR on 04/01/2018 - 09:41
    -1

    The insurers will work out who is at fault.

  • TailsK on 04/01/2018 - 10:26
    +3

    What's the most popular dashcam these days?

  • imurgod on 04/01/2018 - 10:58

    Lodge your claim with your insurer. Hit in rear is a clear cut case where the other party is at fault.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/01/2018 - 12:37

      It is usually, I was however reversed into once stopped at an intersection. Immediately after I phoned my insurer and the other party did admit fault I assume. Luckily, because it's generally assumed that hit in the rear is a clear-cut case.

      • imurgod on 04/01/2018 - 16:00

        You're completely correct.

        Insurers will generally go by what is a more likely scenario and hit-in-rear is difficult to disprove without solid evidence.

        This might be where a dashcam comes in useful or a witness.

  • HADOUKEN on 04/01/2018 - 14:15
    +5

    Is it just me or are these car accident forums the new "AMA" plaguing this site?

  • JimmyF on 05/01/2018 - 15:23

    we both have comprehensive insurance

    Great to hear…..

    Their insurance company is now saying that we are at fault.

    Ok, so why are you at fault, they would have given a reason.

    neighbour gave false testimony saying that my mother was reversing and hit her car and now the woman is claiming the same thing to her insurance.

    Ok, was this the case? maybe rolled back?

    Push your insurance company to advise this was the case. they have clear 'rules' for who is at fault unless the other party has video footage to show something different.

  • nobarginsarehere on 05/01/2018 - 20:01

    GET A DASH CAM

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join