Hey guys, just wondered what you would advise with the following:

Several months ago whilst reversing out of a supermarket car-park I was hit by another car from behind doing the same.

I had actually finished reversing and was shifting to 1st gear when the collision occurred, obviously the 3rd party didn't look/missed me in mirrors.There are several factors which confirm that I am not to blame..but no proof.

The damage to my car doesn't warrant paying my excess in order to claim, which is what I informed my insurance company when I notified them that they may hear from the 3rd party whose car received rear quarter damage.

Several weeks later I received a letter from direct Line stating that since there was no witnesses & that we HAD both been reversing shortly prior to the collision that a 50/50 settlement had been suggested and already offered to the other parties insurance company.I had already stopped reversing...regardless of how long for..motionless is motionless right?

Bearing in mind that direct line only knew of the few details I relayed to them straight after the accident. I didn't receive an incident form or such like..nothing asked about whom I felt was responsible,whether the supermarket had cctv..descriptions, diagrams...NOTHING!!

Most annoyingly, they didn't inform me of their decision until offering it to the other insurance company!

Upon ringing to verify the above with Direct Line I expressed my dis-satisfaction with their decision, and I asked them to confirm that the offer had already been made..which they did!

The strange thing is I have now received a letter from the 3rd parties insurance company asking me to inform them of my insurance details..something I would assume they have since they have apparently received an offer from them! Am I being screwed over here? Is it likely that Direct Line hasnt made any contact yet? And If they have made an offer can they do so without my consent!? What are my chances of success if I detest the decision? It wasn't my fault, my car wasn't damaged..yet I stand to lose 4yrs no-claims in order to pay 50% of the 3rd parties damages!

What would anyone advise, much appreciated.

WB760

It is the insurer's decision as to whether or not to settle - a principle they follow when they do anything else for you.

direct line code their claims into 5 categories, and action taken depends on what category is selected by the advisor who logged the claim. This generates a letter automatically that is sent to the other insurance company. the other insurance company has probably just sent you a standard letter.

I can assure you that your claim will probably read "ph + tp reversed on car park". My experience there is that what the customer says and what the advisor enters onto the system rarely correlate (they do have targets to hit you know - they can't waste time getting accurate details and I know becasue I worked for them but left becasue of general incompetence of most advisors there).

As to what happens now, gievn that there is no evidence eitehr way, then a 50/50 settlement would be seen as reasonable. An insurer cannot spend time fighting a case where there is no reasonable chance of success.

You can chose to pay the third party their costs, or re-imburse Direct Line. So long as they get their money back, you can have your no claims re-instated.

That's what happens when you use call centres that focus on targets and employ staff to deal with insurance matters who couldn't tell their ubberimae from their fides)

Cheers Gizmo, nice to hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about...So in theory the decision they've reached is probably reasonable and just, but surly they should inform me of any decisions made before offering a settlement...I pay for the legal aid along with the insurance premium, don't they even need to ask if I'm happy with their decision or whether I'd like to make use of the Legal Aid I've paid for for the last 4.5 years! I understand the situation that direct line are in in regards to a long legal dispute which will probably have the same outcome that they've proposed,or even possibly swing against them, but surely that decision requires some sort of input from myself!

Also once I had put across my dissatisfaction to direct line they confirmed that the offer had already been made and therefore couldn't be change anyway...yet the 3rd party's insurance are not aware of MY insurance company...so 1) proposal allegedly made without my input, 2) that proposal confirmed by direct line claims department - as opposed to admitting that it was either a standard letter template dispatched automatically, just to myself and could be change if necessary before contacting the 3rd party.

Surley there must be some code of practice they have to adhere to in regards to claims,whether I not I dispute their settlement ..where was my input since I'm footing the bill in the long run!??

Reckon there's a chance to maybe come out with a little no-claims still intact if I threasten to complain...or am I whizzing in the wind!

cheers wb760

They do have to follow the code of conduct laid down by the FSA. It's been a while since I last worked in insurance, so my memory on this is a bit foggy.

As I said before, the decision does lie with the insurer. You would have to sho that it is unreasonable, but the decision does not seem to be given the lack of evidence. I think the only gripe here is that they did not communicate with you, which is wrong. But that does not alter the facts or the decision. I have had many a case where the insured has disagreed with the action taken by the insurer - it is one of those areas where what the lay person believes should happen and what does happen re totally unrelated.

The insurer has the right to act as though they were you (and avail themselves of the rights and responsibilities that you have. They are carrying the risk after all).

Where an accident has taken place, there is a duty on insurers to act without unreasonable delay, and where liability is clear, then an offer should be made as soon as possible.

The liability here cannot be said to be anything else than split liability, given the lack of evidence. As such, I can only say that Direct Line have reached the correct decision. They merely made a has out of it by not informing and explaining things properly to you, which has left you feeling that yoyu have been hard done to. Had they done so, I think you would probably have not been happy about the situation, btu would have accepted it knowing that it was correct (that is my experience with people anyway in similar situations).

You can make a complaint, but I think it would only serve to make you feel even worse.