Pinkykaloo
New Member
- Messages
- 1
It sounded to me like the OP's insurers took the same view as mine and settled the claim rather than contest it and waste loadsa money in court. Simplez methinks.It doesn't sound to me like your friend is 100% at fault.
Reading the OP, I was thinking the law/ rules of the road may actually be different to common practice on the road. People flash their lights all the time to let someone know that they are letting them out. But if the rules says you are not to use them in that manner, they can't rely on that.The law is pretty clear on this one, you must yield to traffic already on the road. They have right-of-way, any signalling they may do does not alter this in any way. Also, the law states that you should only flash your lights as a warning.
If your relative crashed into the back of the other car, they are at fault. If the other party went directly to the insurance company, they should have the option of buying the cost of the claim from the insurance company. the relative will have to judge how long they think they will continue driving for too? If they don't think they have too much driving left in them, maybe better to let the insurance company pay out and then just stop driving.Am I right in thinking that the Insurer decides whether to accept or contect the claim? I've an elderly relative who was involved in a parking fender bender the other day. No damage but the guy is bringing a claim. Relative has photos. Presume my relative may end up with a claim against and possibly a loss of no claims if the Insurer decides to accept?
Yeah, that's true, and the most common use as a warning is probably to alert other drivers of a speed trap!Reading the OP, I was thinking the law/ rules of the road may actually be different to common practice on the road. People flash their lights all the time to let someone know that they are letting them out. But if the rules says you are not to use them in that manner, they can't rely on that.
Thanks @Steven Barrett - I didn't realise the bold bit above is possible. The insurance assessor has been and assessed there to be zero damage to relative's car so hopeful this will all just go away.If your relative crashed into the back of the other car, they are at fault. If the other party went directly to the insurance company, they should have the option of buying the cost of the claim from the insurance company. the relative will have to judge how long they think they will continue driving for too? If they don't think they have too much driving left in them, maybe better to let the insurance company pay out and then just stop driving.
A most commendable practice!Yeah, that's true, and the most common use as a warning is probably to alert other drivers of a speed trap!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?