Dumb woman reversed into dads car (saying shared fault)

ILLaViTaR · 22-11-2010, 06:17 PM

Hey guys.

Today in the carpark dad was reversing out of his park at the shops and without looking this moron starts reversing out towards dads car.
So dad stops the car and honks his horn, she doesn't hear and keeps reversing oblivious to everything she finally hits his car.

Now she admitted fault but our insurance company are saying that her insurance company will only accept shared fault, due to some stupid public liability law, they're saying it's a gray area.

Fact is this isn't a gray area, she's quite clearly at fault, it's not like they reversed into each other.

Anyone have any idea what we should do?

Cheers.

glavas · 22-11-2010, 06:28 PM

what kinda car is it? if its nothing good dont worry to much. if its half decent id get very mad and want to do ilegal things to the said person. dont let her think she can boss you around okay. im guessing you know who she is now.so im NOT gunna say follow her(which is wrong) but bump into her alot. and demand the money. buy a new house that just happens to be in the same street as her. get a job that happens to be were she works. obtain a fire arm(by legal means).invite her out deep sea fishing just you her and your old man. And pray that the weather dosent turn to bad and the boat sinks and the strong currents only allow the strong to survive

dont do nothing stupid tho.....

rancidpunx · 22-11-2010, 06:29 PM

Tell your insurance company to do their bloody job and make sure your Dad is fully compensated.

AWD Chaser · 22-11-2010, 06:46 PM

Unless there are witnesses, its gonna be shared fault... a few threads on it, and happend to my Bro-in-law too...

To them, without witnesses, it's just hearsay for whos at fault...

Really sux that you have to pay for someone elses stupidity.... but its just the way it is

falcontonner · 22-11-2010, 07:02 PM

if he was stationary when it happened then its the womans fault as whoever is reversing its their fault. go down the cop shop and they will tell you that. even make a statement and give that to your insurance company. i think your suppose to have one anyway if its more than 2 grand damage i think...

jaydee · 22-11-2010, 08:13 PM

Mate, insurance comapny's have an agreement called "knock for knock", basically, we'll pay ours you pay yours.
Doesn't help your Dad as far as an excess goes but if the woman has admitted fault she might spring for the excess.

phillyc · 22-11-2010, 08:31 PM

If it's at all possible get the lady to admit fault to her insurer and yours.

The reason they are pushing for the current scenario is BLATANT PROFITEERING. The reason it's a grey area, is because they bully people into accepting this substandard (not for them) outcome.

The blatant profiteering arises from when they make you both accept / take blame is BOTH insurance companies get to take the excess AND the following years increases if the no claim bonus isn't protected. So, a $4000 carpark incident results in $1200 in excesses, and 30% increases to both premiums in the first year, tapering down by 10% each year after. So, effectively a 60% hit to both. On a standard $800 premium, thats nearly $500 each. The net result is $2200 into their coffers instead of half that.

Hope it goes okay. Best of luck.

ThaFlash · 22-11-2010, 09:37 PM

look for video footage, atm, in store cameras etc....

get the film there has to be some somewhere

Yaw · 22-11-2010, 10:44 PM

Each insurer will do the best they possibly can to represent thier client. In most cases like this it will end up as an "each bear own situation". Your dad says he was stationary. A lot will depend on what the other person says to thier insurer. If she says she was stationary and your dad hit her or that both reversed into eachother. Unless there is an independent witness neither side can prove thier case, hence it ends up being either 50/50 or each bear own. I know it sucks but how are you going to prove it?

Between the accident and lodging a claim she has probably talked to her friends or just thought she does not want to be at fault or pay an excess, so by the time she lodges a claim the story changes. Once again, how can either prove the other is lying?

Yaw · 22-11-2010, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

If it's at all possible get the lady to admit fault to her insurer and yours.

The reason they are pushing for the current scenario is BLATANT PROFITEERING. The reason it's a grey area, is because they bully people into accepting this substandard (not for them) outcome.

The blatant profiteering arises from when they make you both accept / take blame is BOTH insurance companies get to take the excess AND the following years increases if the no claim bonus isn't protected. So, a $4000 carpark incident results in $1200 in excesses, and 30% increases to both premiums in the first year, tapering down by 10% each year after. So, effectively a 60% hit to both. On a standard $800 premium, thats nearly $500 each. The net result is $2200 into their coffers instead of half that.

Hope it goes okay. Best of luck.

Insurers DO NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT from a claim. It is not legal to do so.
Insurers make money from selling a product. As for pocketing an excess, it goes toward a repair either yours or the other persons. Many a time when a claim has cost less than the excess I have refunded the client the difference because we CANNOT make a profit from a claim by law.

cjf · 22-11-2010, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

If it's at all possible get the lady to admit fault to her insurer and yours.

The reason they are pushing for the current scenario is BLATANT PROFITEERING. The reason it's a grey area, is because they bully people into accepting this substandard (not for them) outcome.

The blatant profiteering arises from when they make you both accept / take blame is BOTH insurance companies get to take the excess AND the following years increases if the no claim bonus isn't protected. So, a $4000 carpark incident results in $1200 in excesses, and 30% increases to both premiums in the first year, tapering down by 10% each year after. So, effectively a 60% hit to both. On a standard $800 premium, thats nearly $500 each. The net result is $2200 into their coffers instead of half that.

Hope it goes okay. Best of luck.

As said this suits the insurance company as it is a way to recoup some of the money,collusion amongst insurance companies is rife just like the banks.

Mad Maxine · 22-11-2010, 10:57 PM

This almost happened to me a week ago! I realised the stupid bint driving wasn't aware of me being three quarters out of my parking slot, so I had to flip it back into gear and basically, get back into my car space, or she would have hit me. Sorry I can't advise you, but it's a common situation, I guess.

flappist · 22-11-2010, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

Insurers DO NOT MAKE ANY PROFIT from a claim. It is not legal to do so.
Insurers make money from selling a product. As for pocketing an excess, it goes toward a repair either yours or the other persons. Many a time when a claim has cost less than the excess I have refunded the client the difference because we CANNOT make a profit from a claim by law.

Banks do not charge unwarranted fees, it is not legal to do so.....

Telstra does not overcharge its customers, it is lot legal to do so....

State Governments do not place speed cameras in places for pure revenue, it is not legal to do so.....

Yep I believe......

satria · 22-11-2010, 11:51 PM

some idiot backed into my xw in what sounds like the exact same way. I was blocked with nowhere to go and the guy in the space i was opposite to started reversing without looking. I was on my horn but he obviously didn't hear and took out my passenger side.

I didn't get any of the fault though which is the way it should be! Tell your dad's insurer to do their job better.

duaned · 23-11-2010, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Banks do not charge unwarranted fees, it is not legal to do so.....

Telstra does not overcharge its customers, it is lot legal to do so....

State Governments do not place speed cameras in places for pure revenue, it is not legal to do so.....

Yep I believe......

And how is any of this relevant to this thread?

SILENT_RAPTOR · 23-11-2010, 12:33 AM

And your post helps how?

Neale · 23-11-2010, 12:42 AM

makes you want to punch her & then when she charges you with assult claim "shared fault" lol.

just joking dont really do that though

Back to the real world though. If you need a witness to her being at fault. Wont her admittance to being in the wrong be enough as she did witness it (or maybe she didnt otherwise it wouldnt have happened)???

saber · 23-11-2010, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

Each insurer will do the best they possibly can to represent thier client. In most cases like this it will end up as an "each bear own situation". Your dad says he was stationary. A lot will depend on what the other person says to thier insurer. If she says she was stationary and your dad hit her or that both reversed into eachother. Unless there is an independent witness neither side can prove thier case, hence it ends up being either 50/50 or each bear own. I know it sucks but how are you going to prove it?

Between the accident and lodging a claim she has probably talked to her friends or just thought she does not want to be at fault or pay an excess, so by the time she lodges a claim the story changes. Once again, how can either prove the other is lying?

This man speaks the truth.

Exact same situation occurred for me. Lady backed into my old XF ute. I was half way out of the space when I saw the white lights go on and the lady begin back out, without evan looking behine her

Anywho, I stopped, and began to put the car into forward gear, in an attempt to aviod a collision. But it was too late, she backed into the towball of the ute.

Anywho, after exchanging details, I gave a quick call to the insurance company. In their eyes, as I couldn't conclusively prove that I had stopped to avoid the cdollision (ie not witnesses or security cameras footage), and she had hit me, we would both be found at fault, and hence we were redsponsible for our own cars damage. Which for me was nothing, as my good old towball took the hit

bobthebilda · 23-11-2010, 01:53 AM

The simple fact is, that without independant witnesses, its always going to be one word against the other. 1) oh she backed into me 2) oh he drove forward into me..

I doubt very much that after advice from her insurance company, she is going to go on the record and admit fault, and I doubt the police are going to give it any time (if police spent time on all minor car park bumps, everyone else would be out robbing banks).

Sometimes you just have to accept, its not really fair, but I guess thats why we take out insurance to try and level the bumps out.

ILLaViTaR · 23-11-2010, 01:59 AM

Sorry guys I haven't had the chance to read every comment yet.

She isn't denying fault as far as we know, she admitted fault at the time.
And she said she was sorry, she wasn't looking, thought the horn was further away.

When dad called the insurance company they were saying HER insurance company will try for shared liability so giving her a chance to get out of full liability. Knowing most humans she'll take the opportunity.

I don't know how they can stereotype this into a grey area? How do they have the authority to deem fault when they have no clue what has actually happened. Our car was stationary so it doesn't fall into a grey area, yet apparently they can still attempt this?

**Professor Farnsworth** · 23-11-2010, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Sorry guys I haven't had the chance to read every comment yet.

She isn't denying fault as far as we know, she admitted fault at the time.
And she said she was sorry, she wasn't looking, thought the horn was further away.

When dad called the insurance company they were saying HER insurance company will try for shared liability so giving her a chance to get out of full liability. Knowing most humans she'll take the opportunity.

I don't know how they can stereotype this into a grey area? How do they have the authority to deem fault when they have no clue what has actually happened. Our car was stationary so it doesn't fall into a grey area, yet apparently they can still attempt this?

the point is if she tells her insurance company she was stopped and you hit her, there is no way of proving otherwise, thus the grey area.

Yaw · 23-11-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Banks do not charge unwarranted fees, it is not legal to do so.....

Telstra does not overcharge its customers, it is lot legal to do so....

State Governments do not place speed cameras in places for pure revenue, it is not legal to do so.....

Yep I believe......

As a matter of fact more often than not an insurer will make a loss on a recovery. for instance another insurance company may short pay a tow or dispute a hire car length of time and short pay that . in these cases a lot of the time the insurer just sucks it up

GT 160 · 23-11-2010, 09:16 AM

Just cop it on the chin and move on. For the cost of the excess it's not worth the stress.

I rear ended a woman who slammed on her brakes at 60 km/h to perform an illegal u turn at a set of traffic lights on a major intersection. I had witnesses all in my favour, she even admitted fault to the police.

I was still fined for neg driving "failing to maintain safe stopping distance" She got off with a finger waived at her by the cops, and i was still found at fault by my insurance company. In the end no matter how much i screamed and yelled for a $600 excess it wasn't worth all the stress.

james123 · 23-11-2010, 10:00 AM

i had this problem but i wasnt even in my car but i seen it happen

ltd · 23-11-2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duaned

And how is any of this relevant to this thread?

Reread it mate, it's pretty funny.

After Yaw correctly outlined what the insurance company will most likely do in this instance (and Yaw works in the profession), Flappist added a touch of skepticism by challenging Yaws assertion of it being illegal for insurance companies to profiteer. He successfully did this by referencing the illegality of some of our best known (and loathed) institutes such as the Telstra, the police and the banks.
All in all, it wasn't a personal attack but was a much needed addition to the range of advice on offer for the original poster.

ZA-289 · 23-11-2010, 10:31 AM

The fact that it was in a car park means you have no hope, its basically private property so you will never get paid the full amount for your car repairs.

psychoticgroove · 23-11-2010, 11:24 AM

I would sit down the lady and have an honest chat with her. Tell her that if she owns upto it, then she would have to only pay her excess and her company would cover both hers and your damage. But if she unscrupulously wants to deny that she's responsible, she'd still have to pay her excess to cover her damage. Which means by being honest, she's not losing anything or by being unscrupulous, she's not gaining anything.

Unless of course she doesn't care about her damage and can live with a damaged car (which a lot of people do if they drive sh!tcans) in which case she may wanna do the dodgy on you.

Kryton · 23-11-2010, 11:45 AM

When both cars are reversing, BOTH are at fault - even if one car stops to avoid the collision.
Thats the way it is whether you like it or not.

Now if your dad was still in his park, hadnt moved at all and she reversed into him, then she is at fault.
Since this didnt happen, your both at fault.

Jason[98.EL] · 23-11-2010, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZA-289

The fact that it was in a car park means you have no hope, its basically private property so you will never get paid the full amount for your car repairs.

why i did had a woman back out and hit me my car was repaired no probs

if they admit fault then i dont see the problem

ThaFlash · 23-11-2010, 04:43 PM

i am pretty sure car parks fall under various, for lack of a better word, juristictions and one would need to make enquiries with the local council as to it's status.

i have also heard in cases similar to this, for one party to sue the other party before the other party sues them. this could be a job for a traffic lawyer.