Driver Almost Takes Our Car Door off - Says We're at Fault and Won't Answer Calls

LIssun on 16/05/2025 - 23:08
Last edited 17/05/2025 - 10:51 by 1 other user

Hey all, just looking for a bit of advice.

The other day my partner was getting out of the car. She checked the rear-view mirror, saw nothing coming, and got out fully. Just as she stood up, a car came around the corner heading towards her. There wasn’t much room to move, so she kind of "sucked her gut in" and pulled the door in towards herself. The driver clipped the door—nearly hit my partner—and ended up bending the door right around so it hit the front of our car.

The driver stopped and came out all frantic, saying the sun was in her eyes and she couldn’t see. They swapped details (well, the lady gave the bare minimum—just a phone number), and that was that. Now our door won’t close properly without pushing it down from the outside, and the window won’t go all the way down either.

Now the insurance part:

We’re only covered for third party. The other driver claimed it was our fault, and both insurers (RACT for her, AAMI for us) have sided with her. They’re saying my partner “created a hazard” by getting out of the car Reference, so there’s no point trying to dispute it.

We’ve tried calling and texting the other driver to talk it through, but she’s gone radio silent for three days now.

So here’s the question:

There’s no actual evidence, she admitted she couldn’t see, and my partner was almost taken out—has anyone had any luck disputing something like this? Or should we just cop the excess and higher premium?

Street view / diagram:

Automotive Accident Car Insurance Insurance

Comments

  • Downvoter on 16/05/2025 - 23:20
    -5

    Where’s your comprehensive insurance?

    • Issun on 16/05/2025 - 23:37
      +10

      We had it until recently, the car is 2004 and already in a knocked up shape so we thought it more reasonable to get 3rd party only.. That was last month 😴

      • AustriaBargain on 17/05/2025 - 00:23
        +21

        Expensive mistake.

        • smartazz104 on 17/05/2025 - 14:43
          +21

          Nah imagine the money they've saved by not paying for full cover, now they can easily pay for their door and the other car's damage /s

          • Dr Phil on 18/05/2025 - 10:49
            +6

            @smartazz104: OP has third party insurance so the other party is covered.

            OP can go to the wreckers and find a replcement door
            Hopefully the hinges and mounting points are not damaged

          • slipperypete on 19/05/2025 - 06:20

            @smartazz104:

            imagine the money they've saved

            they only dropped it last month, they lost out unfortunately

        • nobro25 on 18/05/2025 - 12:16

          Irrelevant because both insurance companies deemed OP as in the wrong. Even with Comphrehensive you're gonna be paying a lot since you're found at fault to repair your own vehicle.

          • ronnknee on 18/05/2025 - 20:27
            +1

            @nobro25:

            Even with Comphrehensive you're gonna be paying a lot since you're found at fault to repair your own vehicle.

            Just the excess right?

            • Friskies on 19/05/2025 - 12:06
              +3

              @ronnknee: This is correct. Its the entire point of comprehensive insurance….

      • boomramada on 17/05/2025 - 08:37
        +8

        Even its a $2 car, that's what you get for having 3rd party only. Your choices are slim.

        • paralleltwin on 17/05/2025 - 09:22
          +5

          When you say, "thats what you get", it wouldnt have made any difference if they had comprehensive would it? 🤔 They are not complaining about the cost to their car, they are complaining about the excess and premium increase, which would have happened anyway due to their insurer not siding with them.

          • Wonka on 17/05/2025 - 09:27
            +2

            @paralleltwin: They aren’t complaining about the premiums. Their insurance won’t do anything in this instance because it’s 3rd party and they’ve sighted a law about it being the OPs fault. If they had comprehensive the OPs insurance May have fought harder because they would have been liable to help the OP get it fixed either way.

            • paralleltwin on 17/05/2025 - 09:36

              @Wonka: I read this bit and understood it as them complaining about premiums because thats pretty much what they said: "Or should we just cop the excess and higher premium?"

              • Dr Phil on 18/05/2025 - 10:53

                @paralleltwin: I dont think its that clear.
                OP is complaining about everything!

                However OPs main issue is that the partner was found to be at fault by BOTH insurance companies.
                This is what determines everything else

            • Ahoon on 18/05/2025 - 23:35

              @Wonka: ??? It doesn't matter OP is at fault or not, that's the whole purpose of insurance, not everyone drives perfectly all the time. In both cases, as long as it is not fraudulent claim, OP can pay the excess and move on.

          • serpserpserp on 18/05/2025 - 20:56

            @paralleltwin: That's what you get and you don't get upset

      • Fredorishi on 17/05/2025 - 09:35
        +1

        If it's a dinged up, 21 year old car, why on earth would you go through insurance for a dinged door?

        • paralleltwin on 17/05/2025 - 09:39
          +1

          They aren't going through insurance for their car..

          • Fredorishi on 17/05/2025 - 09:43

            @paralleltwin: Yeah, I guess not. Doesn't really say how much damage there is to the other party. Or even if she's making a claim. I guess we can assume that with the inclusion of "both insurers" but it's pretty vague. OP seems more worried about his own car hence asking.

      • Dr Phil on 18/05/2025 - 10:47
        -1

        Bad timing

      • Euphemistic on 17/05/2025 - 08:58
        +21

        Ill agree its a rort, but its not a scam.

      • TEER3X on 17/05/2025 - 10:40

        It was the same price for 3rd party for a 20 year old car vs low km comprehensive (under 9k km I think)

        It's expensive but what else can you do?

    • Sinnerator on 17/05/2025 - 14:14

      fully comp GENERALLY only worth it up to 10% of your car's value, otherwise just get TPFT
      I know someone with a $5000 car and most insurers wanted $2200 to $2500 for fully comp LOL

      • MS Paint on 18/05/2025 - 15:21
        +2

        sympathy or advise

        Lol. Classic Dr Dhil.

        • 2025 on 18/05/2025 - 21:38
          +2

          Oh no he’s made 11 comments in the past 24 hours, but we’re only allocated 10 downvotes. It’s impossible to downvote every one of thier comments

          I knew this day would come :(

          Does subscribing to OzB Premium Pro Max refresh the downvotes quicker?

          • MS Paint on 18/05/2025 - 21:41
            +1

            @2025: Premium pro max plus ultra platinum gives you..

            N+10

            Where N = Dr Phil 24hr comment count

            • 2025 on 18/05/2025 - 21:43
              +1

              @MS Paint: Makes sense, cheers ;)

              Scotty, cheque is in the mail. I’m good for it, hook me up pls.

  • elgrande on 16/05/2025 - 23:21
    -1

    Why are you linking to an offence of getting out of a moving vehicle.

    • Issun on 16/05/2025 - 23:29

      See (3)

      • elgrande on 17/05/2025 - 06:08
        +1

        Thanks

  • Bruceflix on 16/05/2025 - 23:22
    +20

    Without a MS paint diagram I'm going to side with both of the insurance companies, the road rules, and the other driver.

    • Issun on 16/05/2025 - 23:36
      +3

      Haha, you're right. Added one to the bottom of the post.

      • Bruceflix on 17/05/2025 - 00:09

        Great work. Now if we had some video we could determine if the door was opened when it was safe to do so.

        Regardless, insurance are involved so best your partner gives the insurance the details of what happened and do not admit liability.

        • Penguin30 on 19/05/2025 - 13:09

          You would have to say it wasn't considering a car hit it.

      • MS Paint on 17/05/2025 - 07:44

        Classic white Camry on street view.

  • SydStrand on 16/05/2025 - 23:36
    +2

    We’re only covered for third party.

    Well. Unless you have video footage, you're SoL. You've seen enough insurance posts here to know better.

    • Jaduqimon on 16/05/2025 - 23:41
      +5

      actually 3rd party or not, it doesnt really help even if he had full comp, without dashcam footage, it will still be ruled against him. full comp just means he pays 1 excess and gets both car fixed.

  • Jaduqimon on 16/05/2025 - 23:39
    -1

    Question 1: Where is your dash cam/rear dash cam footage?

    Question 2: where is your comprehensive insurance?

    Answered "Don't have" to the questions above?, then its your word against theirs and from the situation, and when viewed/assessed by insurance company, their most likely recreation scenario based on the damage to both cars was that your partner opened the car door without checking that it was safe to do so.

    Now fix your own car and pay the excess for your 3rd party insurance to cover the other car's damages.

    • CaptainJack on 16/05/2025 - 23:54
      +4

      Comprehensive isn't relevant to who's at fault. If AAMI thought they had a chance of demonstrating the other driver was at fault they would've gone down that route.

  • Davo1111 on 16/05/2025 - 23:48
    +3

    I don't believe your story

    • smartazz104 on 17/05/2025 - 11:17
      +55

      Congratulations, you've been promoted to insurance assesor.

  • holdenmg on 16/05/2025 - 23:58

    Hi,

    A phone number isn't much to go on…

    Have you got a number plate?
    (better still, have you got their Number Plate).

    Try sending them an SMS if they won't answer when you phone.

    • Issun on 17/05/2025 - 00:01
      -3

      They answered initially with details like policy number, etc to get the claim going. Now that we've discovered they're claiming we're at fault, without any chance to explain our point of view of what happened, now they are no longer answering SMS or calls :)

      • CaptainJack on 17/05/2025 - 00:16
        +6

        Have you talked to your insurer? Even if the other party answers, I'm not sure what that would achieve since their insurer is handling it now.

        That said, it sounds like you are actually at fault.

      • AustriaBargain on 17/05/2025 - 00:22
        +14

        The whole point of comprehensive insurance is to not have to answer your calls or texts. You're (profanity) I think, you're going to have to pay to repair your own door and their car.

      • [Deactivated] on 17/05/2025 - 01:56
        +8

        Insurance has sided with them, you're SOL really.

        What do you really expect to happen by explaining your point of view? They'll suddenly change their mind and decide they're happy to have a claim against their insurance, even though everyone has decided they're not at fault?

        Reality is, while your wife did nothing "wrong" she's still "at fault". I'd chalk it up as a miracle that she's ok and move on. Unfortunately, it's the way it goes. Your wife had to make sure no one would hit her door, which involves and a physically impossible level of checking no one is coming.

        • Jackson on 18/05/2025 - 01:20
          +3

          Why is it a physically impossible level of checking? If you check no one is coming, you get out quickly and move out of the way. If someone is coming, you don't get out. You don't get out and then just "think thin", she's lucky she wasn't hurt.

          Even in situations where someone is lane splitting in a motorcycle, if someone opens their door and gets hit it's their fault all day every day. It's your responsibility to check no one is coming, and cars don't just materialise. Even if it was ckming around a corner, chances are you might have seen that car indicating from whence it came if it was close enough for you to be unable to get out if the way. Not trying to be mean but I am truly at a loss. You could argue the guy had heaps of space and shouldn't have hit her but that's not what I am hearing.

      • apsilon on 17/05/2025 - 05:33
        +3

        If they've initiated a claim then that's exactly what they should do. You need to deal with the insurer. Without some evidence like a dashcam showing they came along much later or a witness then you've got little chance of them agreeing you're not at fault.

    • Davo1111 on 19/05/2025 - 17:24
      +1

      it doesnt really matter.

      Both insurance companies have agreed it's OPs fault, and cited the law.

      I'd be ignoring calls from at at-fault driver, trying to pressure me into paying for the damage.

  • Bruceflix on 17/05/2025 - 00:05
    +1

    By law they have to give you the drivers name and address and the car owners name and address if different. The rego and insurance details. They don't have to give phone number.

  • AustriaBargain on 17/05/2025 - 00:21
    +12

    You'd think if you opened your door into oncoming traffic that you would be at fault. And their insurer should be coming after you for repairs to their car.

    • mrXO on 19/05/2025 - 08:02

      Nothing really pissed me off than on a narrow road and the parked car suddenly opened the road side door. I swear if I was not for my swift reaction, sometimes I’d have clipped the door.

  • Kongzi on 17/05/2025 - 00:29
    +11

    Disputing when you're at fault? 😂

  • Yummy on 17/05/2025 - 00:50
    +6

    both insurers (RACT for her, AAMI for us) have sided with her

    Time to ditch that unlucky AAMI.

    • Davo1111 on 19/05/2025 - 17:28
      +2

      tbf it wouldn't be any different with any other insurer.

      We have 2 different insurers, who have come to the same conclusion, and cited the law, which seems to be pretty clear.

  • oooooooo ahhhhhhh on 17/05/2025 - 01:02
    +11

    Sucks and it's really bad luck but in the eyes of insurance you're the ones that opened a door into a lane of traffic. Your insurance will pay for their repairs and you'll need to pay for yours out of pocket.

  • joka on 17/05/2025 - 06:58
    +24

    I think you should thank your lucky stars that your partner is ok and move on.

  • Euphemistic on 17/05/2025 - 07:11

    Unless youve got video footage (nearby business?) Youre out of kuck. Both insurers have sided against you and with the abscence of better evidence than he said/she said, thats what your stuck with.

  • buderim11 on 17/05/2025 - 07:26
    +1

    What make is the car , if it is common car get a door from a breakers and move on.

    • MS Paint on 17/05/2025 - 07:42
      +3

      ended up bending the door right around so it hit the front of our car.

      Hinges and mounting points (below A pillar) are probably now stretched/deformed and I'm guessing will be more complex than a simple door replacement.

      • Euphemistic on 17/05/2025 - 09:02

        Depends on the damage. May be able to pull down on the door while its open and bend it back - but you kinda need to kno what youre doing.

        The window indicates there is some serious damage in it somewhere.

      • Fredorishi on 17/05/2025 - 09:39
        +1

        "our door won’t close properly" - but it still closes by the sounds. Near enough is good enough, surely? ;)

  • kraigg on 17/05/2025 - 07:46
    +2

    "the sun was in her eyes and she couldn’t see". Unfortunately this won't hold up. Without any hard evidence, she can dispute she ever said this. Seeing that both insurance companies have decided against you, it might be futile to dispute it. I'd use the third-party insurance too okay for the repairs to the other car and repair your car door out of your own pocket.

    PS: I totally get your reasoning to switch from comprehensive to third-party. My car is around the same age as yours, and the annual comprehensive premium cost almost the same as the value they insured my car for.

    • Yttrium on 17/05/2025 - 16:57
      +1

      the annual comprehensive premium cost almost the same as the value they insured my car for.

      100% chance of crashing in the next 12 months

    • Tyrx on 18/05/2025 - 09:49

      Even if she could prove that, it wouldn't matter. You don't step out into the road if you're being blinded and your vision is obscured. Instead, move your car to a position where it is safe to exit the vehicle.

      • tenpercent on 18/05/2025 - 09:57
        +1

        The other driver was allegedly blinded and vision impaired by the sun glare, not the OP's partner who was already out of her vehicle.

    • lint on 19/05/2025 - 11:03
      +1

      A lot of people say one thing at the scene of the accident and a completely different thing when lodging with their insurer, so whatever they told OP's partner is meaningless.

      That said, given the circumstances, even if the other party tell their insurer that the sun was in their eyes which impaired her vision of the door being open, I imagine OP's partner would still be found at fault.

  • JimmyF on 17/05/2025 - 07:55
    +9

    We’re only covered for third party. The other driver claimed it was our fault, and both insurers (RACT for her, AAMI for us) have sided with her. They’re saying my partner “created a hazard” by getting out of the car (ref: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/tas/cons…), so there’s no point trying to dispute it.

    This is correct. You opened a door into traffic creating a hazard.

    Not really sure what you want out of this thread? Your insurance said nah, their insurance said nah.

    We’ve tried calling and texting the other driver to talk it through, but she’s gone radio silent for three days now.

    As above, why would they reply anymore? Both theirs and your insurance have said it is your issue, so I wouldn't be replying either.

    TL;DR your issue, pay for repairs and move on with your life.

    • Euphemistic on 17/05/2025 - 09:05
      +5

      You opened a door into traffic creating a hazard.

      On the other side of the coin, the driver was out of the car and had enough time to pull it shut out of the way. That indicates the other driver had time to avoid. Im sure the legislation is written duch that its mean to put fault on a driver thowing a door open and the other car not having tome to avoid.

      However, all we are going off is one person's point of view. It may be skewed.

      • holdenmg on 17/05/2025 - 09:13
        +1

        The door is skewed (or is it skewered).

        • Daabido on 17/05/2025 - 14:17

          I'm more concerned about the Dutch tome. Was it a first edition?

      • JimmyF on 17/05/2025 - 16:02
        +5

        the driver was out of the car and had enough time to pull it shut out of the way

        Well if they did this, then this wouldn't have happened.

        The driver clipped the door—nearly hit my partner—and ended up bending the door right around so it hit the front of our car.

        The door wasn't that pulled in, as the OP partner was between their car and the car in question that hit the door. So the door must have been a good bit out as they hadn't been hit at all.

        However, all we are going off is one person's point of view. It may be skewed.

        Shocked…

        • Euphemistic on 17/05/2025 - 19:15

          So the door must have been a good bit out as they hadn't been hit at all.

          Half the drivers on this planet are below average skill, amd thebaverage skill level isnt great.

          It is entirely possible the driver that hit the door was just incompetent and found a way to shirk responsibility.

          • JimmyF on 17/05/2025 - 20:35
            +4

            @Euphemistic:

            It is entirely possible the driver that hit the door was just incompetent and found a way to shirk responsibility.

            Spin it how you like, but the OP partner was in the middle of the two cars and not hit. So the door was sticking out more than a 'human'

            • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 05:22

              @JimmyF: And any competent driver should be able to avoid running into studf regardless of where its at. Especially if it has been there longer than a few seconds.

              • JimmyF on 18/05/2025 - 10:33
                +2

                @Euphemistic: You assume the door didn't move, you assume the OP side of the story is true.

                Tell me you don't have kids without telling me.

                • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 14:20

                  @JimmyF: All the while you assume the other driver didnt screw up.

                  We are all assuming here.

              • Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 10:00

                @Euphemistic: Then why do vehicles have hazard lights?

                Why do tow trucks have hazard lights, witches hats and signage etc?

                Why do road crews, road works etc have hazard lights, signage and traffic cones?

                I mean these are pretty big obstacles. Far bigger than an end on view of a car door.

                Moving vehicle missed the parked car and the human.

                Stationary person only had to remove their car door from the path of an approaching vehicle which they not only saw, but watched as it approached them.

                If they thought they were in danger, instead of "sucking in their gut", why not just get back into car and close the door?

                Seems to indicate the driver was competent.

      • trapper on 30/05/2025 - 16:14
        +1

        It doesn't matter if your door was sitting open for four hours.

        The hazard is created by you, if someone hits it you are at fault.

    • Nebargains on 17/05/2025 - 21:03
      +2

      Sounds like the door was open before the car turned the corner.

      If your logic is to hold up it means you could just drive into any open door and blame the other party for daring to get out of their car.

      • JimmyF on 17/05/2025 - 21:10
        +2

        If your logic is to hold up it means you could just drive into any open door and blame the other party for daring to get out of their car.

        So you can just randomly open your car door and expect the traffic to stop? LOL doesn't work like that.

        • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 05:26
          +2

          No, you cant just randomly open your door into traffic. But as a driver you need to not hit stuff because you think the other person could get blamed.

          • JimmyF on 18/05/2025 - 07:35
            +3

            @Euphemistic: Based on the fact the driver didn't hit the OP partner, I'm going to side with the car driver was in the right.

            But you believe what you want to believe, I mean both insurance companies are clearly wrong and 3/4 of the people here, but that's ok.

            • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 08:27

              @JimmyF: I dont know anything more than what has been described. What it do know is that its not black and white. Only witnesses to the event can tell us wether the door was flung open into traffic or the door was already open and the car drove into it.

              The only thing i know about an event described in text on a website and from one point of view cannot be fully understood by anyone. If you cannot understand there may be other possibilities, then you dont underatand the situation.

              • JimmyF on 18/05/2025 - 08:30
                +2

                @Euphemistic:

                I dont know anything more than what has been described

                But you do know more, you know how car doors work, how a parked car would look with its door ajar. How far the door would have to be ajar for another car to hit it, but not hit a person standing next to the car. You know the rules of exiting a car into traffic etc.

                So as I said, you believe what you want to believe, I mean both insurance companies are clearly wrong and 3/4 of the people here, but that's ok.

                • Euphemistic on 18/05/2025 - 08:42
                  +1

                  @JimmyF: We dont know how close the other car was to the parked car, nor exactly how far open the door was. We dont know wether the other driver was adjusting the radio or blinded by the sun or watching behind because they just pulled out in a rush to get in front of another car.

                  Im not sure why you are so convinced the other driver is completely blame free. Yes, we know what the rules are, but we also know that when there is a traffic crash, there are ususlly more than one factor causing it and liability ususally comes down to which is most likely, not a single cause.

                  • Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 10:13

                    @Euphemistic: It doesn't matter if the two vehicles were only .5mm away from each other. If there was even a bee's dick between the two vehicles, they would not have collided.

                    The fact there was a collision is a very strong indication that the distance between the two vehicles was O.

                    We know the car door was opened enough for a person "with a gut" no less, could fit between it and the car door.

                    From there, the description in the Op, the math and physics says the door was opened at least a 46% angle to the car.

                    It is irrelevant what the other driver was doing if they were within their designated area travelling as they are legally allowed to.

                    Why insist on working with "what you don't know", instead of what you do know?

                    "Adjusting radio", "watching behind", "pulled out in a rush to get in front of another car"????

                    This is stuff you're just making up.

                    If there was another car, why didn't OP see that car?

                    • Euphemistic on 23/05/2025 - 10:31

                      @Muppet Detector:

                      It is irrelevant what the other driver was doing if they were within their designated area travelling as they are legally allowed to.

                      It is not irrelevant. If they were in their designated travel area and there was an obstruction they had a duty of care to avoid it. They appear to have failed to do so. They are not legally allowed to continue on their merry way along the lane if there is an obstruction.

                      46% angle

                      46% is not an angle.

                      • Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 11:06

                        @Euphemistic: The parked car not only had a duty of care not to create a hazard for other road users, the legislation explicitly prohibits them from doing so.

                        • Euphemistic on 23/05/2025 - 11:29

                          @Muppet Detector: AND the driver needs to drive with due care and attention.

                          Is a toddler standing in the road a hazard? Yes. Is a driver responsible to avoid the toddler? Yes.

                          Two things can be true at once. In the absence of evidence we can not definitively rule either way. My first post in this thread was basically OP is out of luck unless there is evidence. Doesnt mean that either party was or was not at fault, just that the insurers are denying a claim - becasue neither want to pay, not because they are 'right'

                          • Muppet Detector on 23/05/2025 - 11:48

                            @Euphemistic: FFS! Really tired of this now.

                            Both need to do their actions with due care and attention AND comply with the legislation.

                            The person exiting the vehicle has breached their duty of care AND breached the legislation.

                            Of course a toddler is a hazard. Of course a moving vehicle is obliged to avoid it BUT, if they hit that toddler whilst driving with due care and attention, the moving vehicle is not at fault because the toddler is NEVER supposed to be there and the moving vehicle is allowed to be there if doing so within legal requirements.

                            You keep making silly stuff up which has nothing to do with this situation.

                            I don't want to engage further with you on this topic. You just want to keep making stuff up, including scenarios which aren't relevant to the one we are actually discussing and furthermore, expecting me to anticipate whatever irrelevant scenarios you want to use to contradict my contributions, so I can provide whatever caveat would be required for me to do that.

                            Even if I had the skills to do that, I just don't want to.

                            • Euphemistic on 23/05/2025 - 12:20

                              @Muppet Detector:

                              You keep making silly stuff up which has nothing to do with this situation.

                              My points are only to counter your assertion that fault was all on the parked car because 'legislation' based solely on OPs text description and a single image. And that despite OPs comment that the other driver admitted sun in their eyes. 'Sun in eyes' casts doubt.

                        • tenpercent on 23/05/2025 - 11:31

                          @Muppet Detector: You don't know that there was a hazard. It could easily have been a temporarily blinded driver not driving with due care and attention, veering outside the designated driving space. The legislation explicitly prohibits them from doing so.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join