Not-At-Fault Car Insurance Claim - Being "Investigated"

Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 17:16

So, I was recently involved in a car accident. At an intersection, waiting to turn right, giving way to oncoming traffic. There was a car in front of me, also waiting to turn. We were both "in" the intersection. When the light turned yellow, instead of proceeding with their turn, the driver in front of me reversed into the front of my car.

My car sustained some damage, but is still driveable. I have dashcam footage of the accident, incidentally.

Other driver admitted fault (on the scene, anyway). Got all his details. Later that day, I lodged a claim with my insurance company. As it was only a few days after my new policy began, they mentioned that my claim may be investigated.

Today, I was advised that an external investigator would be in touch. Heard from him this morning. He asked me to conduct an interview, which I agreed to (reluctantly). I'm a bit annoyed by the whole thing. I was insured with this company for the previous three years, anyway, so I'm not sure why they think anything is amiss.

Has anyone else been through this process?

Automotive

Comments

  • Nugs on 06/10/2023 - 17:21
    +66

    Show "external investigator" the video, should make it quick and painless
    .

    • Mikefr on 06/10/2023 - 17:28
      +4

      A picture is worth a thousand words….
      A Video is Priceless!!

      • HeWhoKnows on 07/10/2023 - 08:59
        -1

        Same with a clean driving record for which Op makes no comment

        • HeWhoKnows on 15/10/2023 - 08:19
          -1

          So many self-entitled people here down vote the FACTS.

          You cannot change THE FACTS by doing this.

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 17:32
      +1

      I told the insurer, when making the claim, that I had dashcam footage. They didn't ask for it.

      • Seraphin7 on 06/10/2023 - 18:23
        +56

        So when the external investigator gets in touch, insist on providing the dash cam footage and ensure it is officially recorded as being received, etc.

        • Gunnar on 06/10/2023 - 19:08
          +13

          This! And if you get a ‘no’ to turn request to submit the footage make sure you keep. A written record of it (eg an email saying just confirming with you that you do not wish to view the dash cam footage of the incident that I offered you on x date)

      • AustriaBargain on 06/10/2023 - 19:52
        +2

        Maybe the other car has better insurance than you. Your video will clear things up quick, don't worry. Unless the video shows you doing something wrong, then you should worry.

  • Muzeeb on 06/10/2023 - 17:24
    -1

    Other driver admitted fault

    Rookie error.

    Did you put in your claim online?

    Is the external investigator representing your insurance company or the other parties?

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 17:33
      +6

      Error how? I know some people will admit fault at the scene, then later say something completely different. He can say anything he likes; dashcams don't lie.

      I tried to, but it came back with an error, so I had to do it over the phone.

      Investigator is representing my insurance company.

      • Muzeeb on 06/10/2023 - 17:37
        +9

        Error how?

        It's car accident scene 101. Just exchange details and move on.

        • basilv on 07/10/2023 - 17:21
          +13

          Lol how does this have upvotes. He got the driver's details. You can't stop them from admitting fault. If the guy was just like "sorry man that's my bad I didn't see you" how is that a Rookie error? 😂

          • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 23:32
            +3

            @basilv: FFS - I can't believe I share the road with so many idiots.

            Do not admit that an accident was your fault. You may not be qualified to decide this and making this admission could be used as evidence against you if there is a dispute.

            Source - government website

            That is why it was a rookie error on behalf of the guy that reversed into OP.

            Also, OMFG every day on the road drivers are breaking the road rules. After you witness it enough, it becomes normalised driving behaviour for those that do not know the road rules.

          • TightLikeThisx on 07/10/2023 - 23:50
            +5

            @basilv: To add to this it is actually in the paperwork that you sign for the insurer.

            They specifically tell you not to admit fault in any situation.

      • Pootie Tang on 09/10/2023 - 17:59
        +2

        *loss adjustor - tis no investigator

    • mavack on 08/10/2023 - 10:11
      +3

      I hate that this is the world we live in, where clear cut your fault you shouldnt just be the better person and admit it.

      Because it could give the insurance company a way to weasle its way out of paying…

      Yes i know people get things wrong, but sometimes it feels like its the job of the money to get out of paying regardless of laws.

      I was doing 200km/h in my unregisted car in a 40 zone and i clipped your mirror off. It was caught on dashcam of victum car. Insurancr found car was parked 10cm over someones driveway and illegally parked. No fault no pay….. (this is just fictisious scenerio but wouldnt surprise me)

  • [Deactivated] on 06/10/2023 - 17:26

    Can you link the dashcam footage?

    • Stopback on 06/10/2023 - 17:28
      -2

      Op did you tail gate

      • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 17:34

        No.

        • 50cents on 06/10/2023 - 21:10
          +2

          Is that No! For Dashcam footage or tailgate?

      • smartazz104 on 08/10/2023 - 04:22

        How would that change the outcome of an idiot reversing into him?

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 17:34
      +1

      Not at this stage. Trust me, it's open and shut. I wasn't moving; driver in front reversed straight back into me.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/10/2023 - 17:50
        +13

        I'm not doubting you. I just wanna see the dumbo driver in action.

        • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 18:01
          +24

          I'm happy to upload it once the investigation is completed.

          • Broke-Ken on 07/10/2023 - 16:47
            +1

            @Massive Flog: I've subscribed to this thread just for this update

            But with everything you have said in this thread, I think the investigation is just a formality and you have nothing to worry about.

      • AustriaBargain on 06/10/2023 - 19:52
        +9

        You'll make it to the Dash Cam Owners of Australia compilation for sure if you share it.

  • solidussnake on 06/10/2023 - 17:30

    There's no loyalty in staying with one insurer, obviously the other driver have said it's your fault so they're investigating why wouldn't you just send him the footage ?

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 17:35
      +1

      I've offered the footage?

      • solidussnake on 06/10/2023 - 17:36
        +4

        Ok then wait for him to finish his investigation..

        FYI I've been in your situation it took about two weeks and I then in the clear, the P player admitted fault then changed her tune when lodging a claim

        • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 17:39
          +1

          So you were interviewed by an investigator?

  • blitz on 06/10/2023 - 18:17

    As it was only a few days after my new policy began

    Was this a new policy or a renewal?

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 20:39
      +1

      Technically, a new policy. I never automatically renew. But, same insurance company.

      • jmc787 on 07/10/2023 - 22:40
        +1

        This is possibly whats triggering the investigation as its very unusual for someone to take out a new policy with the same company for the same vehicle rather than renew their existing policy, If there are any discrepancies between what you told them when taking out previous policies vs what you told them when taking out this policy then that will set off alarm bells.

        • Cheesysmiles on 08/10/2023 - 00:42
          +3

          Not that unusual to take out a new policy with the same insurer rather than continue an existing one.
          Getting a new policy from the same insurer is sometimes cheaper, esp when they raise the premiums on the old policy when it comes time to renew.
          Insurers just trying to take advantage of people who are too lazy to get new quotes every year.

          • bigbadboogieman on 09/10/2023 - 08:41

            @Cheesysmiles: I have tried this approach but when input the details, address, car rego, etc. it reverts back to the renewal amount automatically at the end of the process so it forces me to move to a new insurer each year.

            • Nugs on 09/10/2023 - 09:52

              @bigbadboogieman: let it expire for a day? assuming you don't need to drive and are confident of no theft etc
              .

              • bigbadboogieman on 09/10/2023 - 10:07

                @Nugs: Experience tells me, when sh!t outta luck, one can get bitten by a dog while riding a camel. That one day has the potential to be the unluckiest day of the century so better safe than sorry.

            • Cheesysmiles on 09/10/2023 - 15:04

              @bigbadboogieman: I guess it might work for some insurers and might not for others.

              It is always worth a try

  • Yummy on 06/10/2023 - 18:17
    +2

    Must be (lucky) with AAMI?

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 20:39

      I won't reveal who it is just yet…

      • donga100 on 06/10/2023 - 23:02
        +22

        My money is on Auto General (Budget Direct, etc.).

        • idonotknowwhy on 07/10/2023 - 23:42

          Budget Direct

          (profanity) what's wrong with Budget? I'm with them as they had good reviews when I signed up years ago…

          • Kamsi on 08/10/2023 - 16:40
            +4

            @idonotknowwhy: Until you have an accident and require their services than you know whether their good review is up to scratch.

            • idonotknowwhy on 08/10/2023 - 17:37

              @Kamsi: Who do you recommend? I haven't had an accident yet but don't want to get screwed when I do.

              • donga100 on 09/10/2023 - 23:13

                @idonotknowwhy: Suncorp and RACQ have been very easy to deal with in my experience and speaking to family members.

        • Big L on 09/10/2023 - 14:55
          +1

          My car was hit by another car doing an illegal turn and that driver admitted liability at the scene and I had two witnesses. My $2500 car was a write off.

          Budget direct (their insurer) still wanted to fight it. It's how they hang onto their money.

          Didn't affect me, my insurer paid out.

  • Slinky0111 on 06/10/2023 - 19:23
    +16

    While the other driver should still be at fault, why did you still que the the intersection if there was already a car waiting to turn ? Pretty sure you shouldn't proceed into the intersection if it's not clear.

    • Muzeeb on 06/10/2023 - 19:27
      +1

      We were both "in" the intersection

      just like this

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 20:41
      +4

      The road we were turning into is four lanes (2 x 2). There was plenty of room for both of us. In fact, we both would have comfortably made it through on yellow. It was inexplicable to me that he decided to reverse straight into me.

      • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 00:14
        +8

        There was plenty of room for both of us

        That's not how it works

      • gromit on 07/10/2023 - 11:38
        +5

        Doesn't matter if there is plenty of room for both of you, you are not supposed to proceed unless clear to do so. doesn't make him not at fault but perhaps they are looking at the fact you were also breaking the road rules

        • In10ce on 07/10/2023 - 12:01
          -2

          OP didn't break the rules. you can enter an intersection, ONLY if there is room on the exit lane.

          https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/roads-s…

          last section bottom of page ^

          • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 12:17
            +3

            @In10ce: But what about road rule 128?

            A driver must not enter an intersection if the driver cannot drive through the intersection because the intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, is blocked.

            OP could not drive through the intersection because of the car in front blocking him.

            • spaceflight on 07/10/2023 - 23:20
              +4

              @Muzeeb:

              OP could not drive through the intersection because of the car in front blocking him.

              By that logic the first car shouldn't have been waiting in the intersection either because they couldn't turn because it was blocked by oncoming traffic.

              • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 23:24
                +3

                @spaceflight: But the oncoming traffic is moving so it's not blocked by definition.

                The first car is allowed enter the intersection and wait for a gap to continue the turn. OP is required to stay behind the solid line until the preceding vehicle is clearly going to be able to make the turn.

                How many friggin people do not know this road rule?

                • spaceflight on 07/10/2023 - 23:38

                  @Muzeeb:

                  But the oncoming traffic is moving so it's not blocked by definition.

                  English might not be your first language so the definition of blocked is

                  blocked
                  obstructed or congested, so as to make movement or flow difficult or impossible.

                  So by definition, the oncoming traffic means the intersection is blocked for a vehicle trying to turn right.

                  If it was not blocked then there would be no need to wait in the intersection for an opening.

                  The first car is allowed enter the intersection and wait for a gap to continue the turn.

                  Not by your logic because the intersection is blocked because that car cannot turn right.
                  By your logic that car should wait behind the white line until the intersection is not blocked and they can turn right.

                  • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 23:39
                    +3

                    @spaceflight: It's not my logic. It's the f<#ken law. FFS

                    • spaceflight on 07/10/2023 - 23:49

                      @Muzeeb:

                      It's not my logic.

                      Yes it is, because you are the one not understanding what blocked means.

                      It's the profanity removed law. FFS

                      The law about turning right doesn't say only one car can enter
                      https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/sl-…

                      • Muzeeb on 08/10/2023 - 00:45
                        +4

                        @spaceflight: Please watch this video before driving your car again. This instructor goes through a lot of intersection scenarios and explains the laws clearly. Thanks in advance.

                        • spaceflight on 08/10/2023 - 11:04

                          @Muzeeb: It's okay thanks.

                          If you can't grasp the definition of 'blocked' then we're never going to get anywhere.

                          Think about it. Why was the first car stopped?

                • terrys on 08/10/2023 - 09:06

                  @Muzeeb:

                  OP is required to stay behind the solid line

                  That may be the case in Victoria. In South Australia, cars waiting behind that line to turn right often mean at busy times one car makes a right hand turn instead of three or four. Not much, but after four or five light cycles the intersection is backing up a bit.

                  If making right hand turn, you enter the intersection on green, and, providing your front wheels are over the line, you may proceed when the way is clear - the same condition that applies to those on the crossing road who must give way to such turning cars even though their light is green.

                  There is usually enough space and time for three vehicles to make it through at the busiest periods.

                  the protocol is often ignored by tourists. and Mr and Mrs Magoo - along with the other S.A. rule that a dual carriageway (i.e. with a centre median strip) is regarded as two roads, and right turning traffic are allowed - and suggested - to - turn into the gap between the traffic islands if there is space. SUVs have sort of nobbled that last one…

          • gromit on 07/10/2023 - 13:20
            +2

            @In10ce: The actual rules state for NSW "A driver must not enter an intersection if the driver cannot drive through the intersection because the intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, is blocked." with an example of "The intersection, or a road beyond the intersection, may be blocked by congested traffic". Victoria is similar.

        • viper8548 on 07/10/2023 - 12:32
          +3

          OP didn't break any rules, and even if he did, that is a separate issue to the collision, hitting a stationary object you are usually always at fault. ie, even if someone parks in the middle of a busy road, does not give anyone the right to hit the parked car and any one who does will be a fault of the collision.

          • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 12:47
            +1

            @viper8548: The rules must be different in Sydney.

          • Massive Flog on 07/10/2023 - 14:06
            +1

            @viper8548: Some people are getting hung up on unimportant details. The real issue is the fact that I'm being investigated and it's being insinuated that I'm trying to do something dodgy.

            • Gareth on 07/10/2023 - 16:39
              +2

              @Massive Flog: You must be new to the internet, nitpicking irrelevant details is de rigeur here.

              • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 16:44
                +6

                @Gareth: It's very relevant. OP was breaking the road rules prior to the accident occuring.

                I'm sure OP will be fine coverage wise but perhaps the two insurance companies are in dispute about responsibility as OP was breaking the road rules prior to the accident.

                FFS - how many people here do not know the road rules?

                • AFOS on 08/10/2023 - 10:02
                  +1

                  @Muzeeb: Do you realize that based on your understanding of the law (which I do not agree with) it will be impossible to turn right at practically any intersection during rush hour? Only one car at the cycle.

                  This may have sense for a small intersection. Then what about a large one where several cars could be waiting to turn right? Should there be only one car then? Imagine this being your car, waiting right after the stop line with plenty of space ahead. How will people behind react?

                  What about an intersection with a red light camera and somebody getting a ticket for trying to turn after you? Sooner or later you will come across an idiot who will take it personally.

            • spaceflight on 08/10/2023 - 11:09
              +1

              @Massive Flog:

              and it's being insinuated that I'm trying to do something dodgy.

              No it isn't.
              Has the insurance company said anything to make you think that, or have they just appointed an investigator as they are entitled to do?

              Maybe that intersection has had a higher than normal number of claims so maybe they have a reason to think that the traffic lights have an issue.

              Maybe the other driver has said something that contradicts your story so they need to clarify things. Do you think that they should just believe 100% of what you said?

        • Roary on 07/10/2023 - 18:23
          +1

          THIS… The are probably trying the line.. Well both cars were breaking the rules at the time. Lets just have both parties settle the repairs with their own insurer.

  • enzioFirenze on 06/10/2023 - 19:35
    +2

    get a hire car if your car is not drivable safely; that will also expedite the process as it's costing the insurance company money.

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 20:41

      It's driveable. Minor damage.

      • enzioFirenze on 06/10/2023 - 20:55
        +1

        do you have a picture? a minor looking damage can still affect drivability

        • Massive Flog on 07/10/2023 - 14:04

          I do, but won't upload it just now. It genuinely has had no impact on the driveability of my car.

      • Haulien on 08/10/2023 - 15:14

        With a front-on collision, even minor, there could be hidden damage to the radiator, engine damage, or more likely, body and frame(!) damage. If it hasn't been looked at by a crash investigator yet, it's not safe. This is doubly so in newer cars where most of them have foam and other impact-absorbing material.

  • randomusername2017 on 06/10/2023 - 19:44
    +2

    Salim moved to Melbourne?

    • kraigg on 07/10/2023 - 08:10

      As much as I'd welcome this news, I highly doubt it. Isn't he still serving time in prison?

  • deme on 06/10/2023 - 19:56

    Today, I was advised that an external investigator would be in touch.

    Name the insurer, so others know

    • Massive Flog on 07/10/2023 - 14:03

      I will at a later date.

      • deme on 07/10/2023 - 14:04
        -1

        Why? Is your post not factual? Why aren't you helping the OzBargain community?

        • Yummy on 07/10/2023 - 16:40
          +1

          OP is a massive flog.

          <3

  • Euphemistic on 06/10/2023 - 20:00
    +9

    It sounds like a normal thing for them to investigate a crash a few days after a policy started. It’s entirely possible that it’s triggered some sort of process to ensure you haven’t had a crash, then bought a policy.

    In this case it’s also possible the other driver has not admitted fault for the incident. It’s a bit unusual for someone to reverse into you in this situation, but much more common for someone to run into the back of the car in front. So it’s also possible this has triggered an interview before the other driver denies liability.

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 20:43

      I suppose it's understandable from that point of view… except I've been insured with them for at least two years prior. Obviously, if there's any question about whether or not he hit me me (or vice versa), they could simply look at the dashcam footage.

      • Rawman on 08/10/2023 - 09:22

        Was there any gap between renewal (when the previous insurance expires and the new Insurance start date)?

  • JimmyF on 06/10/2023 - 20:23
    +1

    Not-At-Fault Car Insurance Claim - Being "Investigated"

    Oh

    Today, I was advised that an external investigator would be in touch. Heard from him this morning. He asked me to conduct an interview

    Double Oh

    I have dashcam footage of the accident, incidentally.

    Well then you have nothing to worry about. Show them the video that confirms your 'story' and the investigation will be closed.

    • Massive Flog on 06/10/2023 - 20:44
      -2

      It better be. I will take it further, if necessary.

      • deme on 07/10/2023 - 14:04
        -5

        Pathetic

  • pjetson on 06/10/2023 - 21:12

    We were both "in" the intersection. When the light turned yellow, instead of proceeding with their turn, the driver in front of me reversed into the front of my car

    Were both cars stationary within the intersection for some time, then the light turned yellow, then the other car then reversed into you?

    There was plenty of room for both of us

    There was plenty of room where? Within the intersection?

    • Massive Flog on 07/10/2023 - 13:59

      Yes and yes.

      • pjetson on 07/10/2023 - 15:34
        +3

        Blocking an intersection is a traffic offence. You may be deemed partly responsible for the collision.

        • Muzeeb on 07/10/2023 - 16:15
          +3

          Don't say that. OP is certain this is an unimportant detail and not the reason they are being investigated.

  • bobbified on 06/10/2023 - 23:30
    +6

    When I worked in claims before, a claim within the first three months of the policy commencement triggered a fraud indicator (amongst others). We used to ignore a single indicator (two or three might cause an investigation), but some companies/assessors might be being a bit overzealous. I've said this in 'past tense' because I'm not sure if it's still three months.

    So this "investigation" is really just a process thing.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/10/2023 - 08:22
    +1

    Retired insurance investigator here with 35 years experience.
    Are you related to the other driver? 😊

    • GordonD on 07/10/2023 - 09:06

      I thought that was just where there was an injury claim.

      • [Deactivated] on 07/10/2023 - 09:16
        +1

        There are many reasons for staged accidents other than injury claims which I won't disclose here.
        I wasn't suggesting that OP was involved in anything fraudulent. I was just joking. 😊

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join