Car Accident-need advice?

Vanilla - Your advice is totally inaccurate and you could cost Stobear money by giving him/her the wrong steer, I have been involved in Litigation for over 12 years, this type of stuff is food and drink to me and I hate it when people give bad advice.

Vanilla "Stobear- I'm afraid yours was the exception- where liability is accepted it is common practice for the insurance company to pay out the material loss and for the personal injury to be left to be resolved at a later date. If I were your solicitor, I'd have threatened to sue separately for the material loss and/or have you take out a loan to pay for the material damage and tell the insurance company I'd hold them responsible to repay loan and interest..."

Vanilla if you were reading the mails you would see that liability has not been conceded !!.
Stobear - Your case is not the exception, just do not mention injury from the outset unless someone actually is injured. Insurance Company will not pay for the property damage as it is a form of admission and it is very rarely that happens unless they are sure that injuries would be uncomplicated. But failure to mention injury or refusal to claim it does not mean that you cannot claim down the road. In any event all injury claims must go through the Government Dept www.PIAB.ie now - Read the site and they have a good help line also, length of time for injury claims has recently changed from 3 to 2 years.

But I would just concentrate on getting you car fixed and pushing the insurance company through a solicitor - it is straight forward enough so any reasonable solicitor should be able to do this. A lot of the time I find that the people in the various call centres with Insurance Company’s get a little bit over their head, most probably frustrated solicitors.

If you sue separately for each claim you might not get legal costs for both, I have seen this before and judges have berated solicitors for even entertaining such a notion. Why would you sue for a car and then sue for your injury separately if you where at loss for both? Does not make sense as both proceedings are linked to the same accident and both are reliant on liability from the same person.

My advice is to just concentrate on the damage, or let your own insurance company sort out your loss, don’t get caught up with it. Taking out loans etc the idea is to get the car fixed and back on the road not to inflict maximum loss on the other party, this is something we are trying to get rid of in Ireland.

In relation to depreciation there is not link that I know of but you can always ask your own insurance company what they would recommend but I did state it previously. I am always at a loss as to why people in Ireland refuse to talk to their own insurance company’s even though if forms part of your coverage, omitting a claim can allow your insurer to evade cover.
 
Vanilla - Your advice is totally inaccurate and you could cost Stobear money by giving him/her the wrong steer, I have been involved in Litigation for over 12 years, this type of stuff is food and drink to me and I hate it when people give bad advice.
Click to expand...

Hello Unregistered, I'm interested to know which part of my advice you feel is 'wrong' or 'bad' or ' totally inaccurate'.

To reply to the points you are making:
1. I did read the posts- it seems to me that there is an independant witness who backs up the claimant- in this case if liability is not admitted, it looks as though it will be shortly.
2. Is it not true that where liability is admitted that material loss is settled early and at a later time, the personal injury is dealt with?
3. Why would people sue seperately for material loss and for personal injury? To get the material loss dealt with quickly- in the District Court, and leave the personal injury to be dealt with at a later date. As someone who has been 'involved in litigation for over 12 years' I would have thought this would be obvious to you. Clearly this is only necessary if the insurance company doesnt pay up. However it is more common to have the claimant take out a loan to pay for the material loss and then include the material loss in the overall action where liability is not admitted. I'm afraid I cannot understand your point in relation to a claimant taking out a loan, perhaps you could clarify what you mean.
4. By the way, PIAB only operates where liability is admitted, and so far it appears that where claimants are represented by solicitors they fare significantly better than where they are not.
 
Vanilla - I did read the posts- it seems to me that there is an independent witness who backs up the claimant- in this case if liability is not admitted, it looks as though it will be shortly.---No problem as long as they are independent and clear in mind.

In relation to the material damage issue I speak from experience, it is a tactic by insurance companies to bring claims to a head. People tend to get diverted about their vehicle and that then bring the claim to the fore by way of proceedings. It is very much the rarity insurance company will pay out on the vehicle, if and only if injuries are claimed, otherwise it is straightforward.
If what you are saying is true then why do we not see the European approach of not only paying for the car but for doctors fees, physio, etc..Are they not all special damages along with the car?

Lets be very clear Vanilla, I am taking about damage and injury, you are talking about property damage only, two different matters that require two different solutions.

Vanilla - By the way, PIAB only operates where liability is admitted, and so far it appears that where claimants are represented by solicitors they fare significantly better than where they are not.

If you read the PIAB Act you will see that it is a compulsory requirement for all injury claim to go through PIAB. If after official notification one party refuses liability then PIAB issue a notice to the injured party to proceed through litigation (the old road), in this case it seems that the person's injuries are physiological which is not currently dealt with under PIAB but you still need to get the approval from them to proceed.
I agree that the old route is more profitable than PIAB but that probably says allot more about the type of claimant than the system and the typical claim culture we have grown to love or hate.

Vanilla - Why would people sue separately for material loss and for personal injury? To get the material loss dealt with quickly- in the District Court, and leave the personal injury to be dealt with at a later date

Now you are really showing your colours, which insurance company do you work for ??

If you went to Court suing separately for your damage, do you not think that the notice of particulars from the opposing side would inquire about injury and that would prejudice you in your future claim. Please Vanilla, LOL, seriously is it AXA or Quinn D
 
What on earth?

:confused: Unregistered, quite honestly your post is more than a little confusing, but I'll try to reply to it, point by point.

it is very much the rarity insurance company will pay out on the vehicle, if and only if injuries are claimed, otherwise it is straightforward.
Click to expand...

This is totally untrue. It is completely standard procedure that an insurance company will pay out for material loss to a car where there is a personal injury in cases where liability is admitted. When I say material loss for a car, I mean an insurance company will pay for damage to a car, car hire or loss of use of vehicle, towing charges, depreciation and so on. All issues relating to the personal injury including medical fees are left to be dealt with along with the issue of the personal injury. Bear in mind that material loss can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, and by then you may very well still be under going treatment.

If you read the PIAB Act you will see that it is a compulsory requirement for all injury claim to go through PIAB. If after official notification one party refuses liability then PIAB issue a notice to the injured party to proceed through litigation (the old road)
Click to expand...

This is what I was referring to- if liability is not admitted, PIAB cannot deal with it.

in this case it seems that the person's injuries are physiological which is not currently dealt with under PIAB but you still need to get the approval from them to proceed
Click to expand...

Not true at all, PIAB does deal with physiological injury. It apparently does not deal with psychological injury.

I agree that the old route is more profitable than PIAB but that probably says allot more about the type of claimant than the system and the typical claim culture we have grown to love or hate.
Click to expand...

More profitable? Isnt the whole point of a personal injury action to put the claimant in the position they would have been if it were not for the accident? So profit doesn't come into it. My point is that claimants who have had the benefit of a solicitor acting for them have fared better before PIAB than those who did not have a solicitor acting for them.

Now you are really showing your colours, which insurance company do you work for ??
Click to expand...

I hate to disapoint you, but I am a solicitor in independant private practice. And I'm out of the closet! :rolleyes:

If you went to Court suing separately for your damage, do you not think that the notice of particulars from the opposing side would inquire about injury and that would prejudice you in your future claim
Click to expand...

I don't want to nit pick, but for someone involved in litigation for over 12 years, I would think you would know that there is no notice for particulars in the district court. Your overall point appears to be that insurance companies rarely pay at the outset for material loss to a car, and leave a personal injury action to be dealt with later even where liability is admitted, but you are absolutely mistaken. I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseum, but it IS common practice.

By the way, I apologise if this has gone off topic, but in fairness, I could hardly NOT reply to someone saying my advice was 'bad' and 'wrong' etc.
 
OK, try reading the posts before your reponses , or print the post off and have a good read first. Go back to original post and you will see that Liability is not admitted. Now if you want to go off onto another post called when 'liability is admitted' you are free to do so, but for now please stick to the original problem.

"I don't want to repeat myself ad nauseum", neither do i but we will agree to disagree on the issue .Clearly , given your war of words approach i doubt very much if you are in the ranks of the legal profession. Come on i have a feeling it is Quinn Direct.

"This is what I was referring to- if liability is not admitted, PIAB cannot deal with it". Yes but you must first go to PIAB , thats the advice, after that you are guided through the process by PIAB or your solicitor. But Solicitors fees as I know are not covered under PIAB if the other side admit liability which can take weeks (90 days) you will have a legal bill at the end YAWN, YAWN.
Do not be advising people to jump in until they know the facts.

I feel i am educating you here Vanilla.................


"Not true at all, PIAB does deal with physiological injury. It apparently does not deal with psychological injury."

Sorry a typo on my part , even i am prone to the odd typo but you did leave out.

In relation to the Notice of Particulars i did jump ahead, but District Court cases can be appealed to the Circuit Court very easily, that is if you wish to wash out the injury claim, you can appeal against the District Court ruling. This is a standard procedure and tactic used by most practices.
YAWN , YAWN ....VANILLA come on is it Quinn Direct
 
Off topic again

Hi Unregistered, I've told you who I am, I'm hiding nothing. I don't know who or what you are, and I don't need to, but apparently you have nothing new to add. I'm right, you know I'm right, but you are now only confusing the issue. I was merely trying to advise the initial poster, and despite your claims that my advice was wrong, you have not been able to tell me why you think it is. Certainly this has gone way off topic, if you have a particular point to make, perhaps it should be made in 'Letting off Steam' where I would be glad to have a friendly debate on PIAB or whatever you would like to discuss.
 
Hello

Yes I have failed to convince you why you were wrong, but I have not failed to point out the logical lawful reasons why i am correct, thats why i said we would agree to disagree.

In relation to your invitation to talk, I would rather not, work to do and money to make for my clinets and I am not in the habit of giving free lectures all day you know you the young and wide eyed.

Serioulsy though, is it AXA ?

PS You obviously deal with Distrcit Court Motor Claims, better get settled for the long haul then.
 
Apologies if this is a threadjack but the original question is kinda buried by now anyway...

Every year I get a documentation package from my insurer which, somewhere, includes advice on "what to do in the event of an accident". This tells me to NEVER under any circumstances admit liability.

Now, I've been in minor entanglements where the other party was at fault and freely admitted it. Thankfully. Presumably they weren't with my insurer...

Does every insurer do this? What's the basis for it? Would we not have a massive problem if, after every accident, both parties stood around insisting it wasn't there fault, regardless of the evidence? Are we supposed to depend on the Gardai to adjudicate?
 
Apropos the contradictions between the advice of Vanilla and 'unregistered' above, I remember a thread on the old ezboard a good while ago dealing with personal injuries claims, which had a poster who said he/she was a solicitor specialising in or frequently dealing with such claims. They had similar syntax and posting style to 'unregistered' here. I'd guess they were the same person. Anyway, my recollection is that in that thread their advice was found to be seriously flawed; many of the statements they made were refuted by well-respected legal AAMers. Does anyone else remember the thread? The woeful ezboard search function won't let me find it, and I suspect it's old enough to have fallen off the edge anyway.
 
Unreg 2 or erm Vanilla , I am still yawning , but yeah I remember that last thread jees i have to say 12 years of Litigation and I was doing it all wrong, duh !
 
I was the same as you Stobear. Had to claim personal and car damage all in one go and it took a futher 2 years to get settled, even after the other party admitted liability.
 
[font=&quot]I have to seriously side with original "Unregistered" here , been in two car accidents and on each occasion and I had to wait until the case was settled to get the car sorted.

Luckily enough my own insurance repaired my car as it was not my fault and did not increase my premium although it still took 2 months for the other insurer to pay up.

I guess some solicitors are specialised in certain areas, "Unregistered" undoubtedly this is your speciality, even though you come across as a bit of an Ambulance Chaser ?[/font]
 
You are legally obliged to get the guards once an accident has occurred. If you don't then you're asking for trouble.
 
Re: Hi All have dealt with this nonsense before, people therCar Accident-need advice?

Unregistered said:
ABC Insurance Company

Dear Sirs

In realtion to my accident of the (date) i wish to inform you that i am holding your insured (name,reg and policy)at fault. Therefore i enclose my estimate for repair and misc losses for your attention.

If a settlement cheque or admission of liability is not forthcoming within the next 7 days i will hand the matter across to (name of solicitor) who will handle my claim.

Your etc with contact details and mobile attached.

I had a guy run into me and total my car, I rang his insurance company and they offered the book value but nothing for the hassle, towing charges, doctors visit inconvenience etc.



So I wrote a letter exactly as advised above with a figure about 900 over the book value and hey presto no problem cheque is in the post. I love solicitors but hate going to them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top