Car accident w/o 'collision'

[sond1sh]

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

[sailor sam]

Hi there,

 

Let me see if I got this right; You are driving during a storm at around 30mph (please keep it to MPH!) and collided with the rear of a pickup truck which is collision 1. Well that part sounds like it was your fault.

 

You were then hit side on by a third vehicle who pushed you into a fourth resulting into damage to both sides of your car in addition to the original front damage which is collision number 2. That would be the fault of the third car's driver by the sound of it.

 

Ok then, the pick up truck would claim off your insurers (if you are deamed to be liable) in addition to your insurers paying for the damage to the front of your car (assuming of course you have fully comp insurance). Your insurers will then claim off the third car driver's insurers to cover the damage to the sides of your car but then the fourth car driver's insurers will claim of your insuers who then would claim also from the third car's insurer to cover the damage caused to the fourth car.

 

As far as I see it (from your information), your liablity ends with the pick-up truck. So your insurers should be claiming for the damage from the second collision. All is needed is an estimate of the 2 areas of damage to assess which is greater than the value of the car (if necessary) but you should still be re-inbursed for the damage to the sides of the car and if this damage exceeds the value of the damage to the front of the car then your insuers will only have to pay for the damage to the truck in the event of your car being written off so I don't see what the problem is unless I have missed something.

[Mossycat]

Can you just confirm that you are in the UK

 

Your use of terms like 'collision insurance' and using KPH suggests to me you are possibly in the USA, and before commenting I'd like to know which country you are actually in

 

Mossy

[sond1sh]

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.

[JonCris]

I assume you only have 3rd party cover. Even so the way it works in the UK is that your insurer pays for the damage you did to the vehicle in front & the insurers of the vehicles, rear & side, which ran into you pay for yours & the vehicle they pushed you into,

 

With 3rd party only the only way you'll be fully covered is if the person that rear ended you pushed you into the vehicle in front

[Mossycat]

The term multiple accident can only be applied when one vehicle shunts another vehicle into at least one more vehicle. From your OP it is clear that this didn't happen here, you hit a car and then some time after that (albeit seconds) another car hit you. Those are quite separate incidents which will have an impact on how insurers deal with it.

 

If the first impact (the one which caused damage to your front end) is severe enough to write the car off then the insurers of the car that hit you do have an argument, basically they are saying that at the point their insured collided with you your car was worthless (sorry if that sounds a bit harsh), so they therefore don't have to pay out.

 

On the other hand, there is no doubt that their insured caused further damage to your vehicle by causing damage to the side of it. This is their liability and they should pay for those repairs.

 

I know how this would be resolved in the UK, but I have no idea how the Canadian system works because there are so many possible outcomes...

 

The third party insurers could insist that you repair your front end before they pay for the subsequent damage

 

The third party insurers could argue that your car was only scrap value when they hit it, so if a wreckers yard would have paid $300 for the scrap and now because of the additional damage they will only pay $200, then they are only liable for $100, because that is all they have reduced the value of your vehicle by in monetary terms.

 

You might be able to insist that they pay you out in cash the value of the repairs that their insured caused and argue that you demand to be put back in the position you were in prior to their insured colliding with you, on the basis that is what insurance is designed to do, and that it matters not that your car was effectively written off at the moment of their impact.

 

IT could be that you all agree a settlement somewhere in between the above 3 possible outcomes

 

The third party insurers DO HAVE a liability here, but I cannot advise you to what extent because I have no experience of Canadian motor vehicle insurance, all I can do is wish you the best of luck in getting it resolved in a way that suits you. I'd be really interested in the outcome though, just out of curiousity.

 

Mossy

[INSURANCEGUY]

It would be wrong of anyone to advise you here, you need to seek advice from a professional in Canada or on a Canadian Forum etc.

 

sorry

[sond1sh]

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!