Okay, thank you all. I've talked to them and the contact I have sounds just as useless as I am. Because it was a 'white out' (where there is such extreme blow-over of snow from fields etc. roads are closed) none of the cars are at fault. Also, I/the police don't have a map of who crashed into who etc.. Anyhow, I am going to push for as much money as possible. Thanks again!

I am in Canada. Americans use MPH. I thought the British used km/h? If not, I was going ~ 20m/h. It was 'white out' conditions and there were weather, and driving warnings. There were no charges and no one was held accountable. I/the police did not make any sketches or diagrams of the ~ 10 car pile-up incident. The insurance company is trying to hold me accountable for the first part of the accident and if the damage from that is more costly than the total vehicle cost then they will write the car off. I am hoping to fight this and claim that it is not two separate accidents, but rather, one accident with multiple stages. Doing this I hope to at least get some money for the second part of the accident (the second SUV ramming my side and pushing me into another vehicle). I do not have the 'collision' option under my insurance which would have covered my car from the initial ramming of the pick-up from behind. So I would not be covered for that but I do have the basic insurance which I would hope would cover the side bang-ups. Hopefully that helps.

i was in a bit of an accident (im okayish). it was during a storm, multi-car crash, no one was held accountable it was all sort of thrown out. i was driving ( i dont have 'collision' on my car so the front end damage to my car would not be covered under my insurance. the second part of the crash however smashed the sides of my car and they said originally that if the sides' cost was more than the value of the car they would reimburse me. now the insurance company is saying the two incidents are separate (the first front end crash and the second part where is was hit on the side) and that if the cost of the front end crash is more costly than the value of the car it will cause a conflict with the second and i would therefore not receive anything. is there anything i can do? theyre trying to catch me on any loophole they can. they said at one point it was all one incident and that because i 'caused' the first part the second part was also my fault. now that my i've battled that they changed it and want to say that if the first part that was my fault was greater than the car cost im pretty much screwed. although if it didnt happen the cost of the cost would be >car worth and they would give me money, because it wouldnt be my fault. hopefully that is understandable. thanks (i've also double-posted this because it wasn't getting action in its first home) thanks

i was in a bit of an accident (im okayish). it was during a storm, multi-car crash, no one was held accountable it was all sort of thrown out. i was driving ( i dont have 'collision' on my car so the front end damage to my car would not be covered under my insurance. the second part of the crash however smashed the sides of my car and they said originally that if the sides' cost was more than the value of the car they would reimburse me. now the insurance company is saying the two incidents are separate (the first front end crash and the second part where is was hit on the side) and that if the cost of the front end crash is more costly than the value of the car it will cause a conflict with the second and i would therefore not receive anything. is there anything i can do? theyre trying to catch me on any loophole they can. they said at one point it was all one incident and that because i 'caused' the first part the second part was also my fault. now that my i've battled that they changed it and want to say that if the first part that was my fault was greater than the car cost im pretty much screwed. although if it didnt happen the cost of the cost would be >car worth and they would give me money, because it wouldnt be my fault. hopefully that is understandable. thanks