Cyclist dragged 20 metres along road by partially sighted motorist still battling with insurers

TriTaxMan wrote:

 And yet insurers will happily argue black is white to try and shave a few hundred quid off a cyclists claim for compensation, but pay far more than that to the cyclists lawyers.

In this screwed up system of ours, it wouldn't surprise me if they can reinsure the legal costs, making it worth their while to fight it on the basis that they are not losing anything by doing so. 

"Despite him admitting liability at the time, being successfully prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and later banned"

From the article, it seems he has already been charged etc.

I never read an article.. I just get outraged at the headline and go straight to comments and ask questions that reading the article may have answered.

It does say the driver was disqualified.

S13SFC wrote:

I got taken out on a downhill last May by a coffin dodger who simply didn't see me.

After 12 months of back and forwards, it's gone from them accepting 0% liability to 80%, which my brief says to take.

It's been a slog but they eventually caved in and now all the medicals etc are done it's now just waiting for the final settlement.

It was a case of compiling as much data as possible, which I did, and putting it in front of them in a way that illustrates perfectly that if it goes to court that they'll lose.

I was relentless and TBF, so has been my brief, who is also a roadie.

Glad it's finally worked out for you.  The best thing to do is join CUK or another cycling club, as they have excellent, informed, experienced legal people on tap, who will quickly and efficiently sort out the delaying tactics of insurance companies.  The companies have learned that they might as well cough up when faced with them.

yes my experience of insurance companies is they react to legal teams who they know will take them to the cleaners, and will stall, prevaricate, hope you get bored and go away to those they dont, and that even includes legal teams the big name insurers use too as alot of them use cheaper firms who just do the basics

With my increased road riding (mainly utility) I think I need to sign up with CUK. If some idoit driver hits me, i don't want the stress of trying to battle the insurers

chineseJohn wrote:

With my increased road riding (mainly utility) I think I need to sign up with CUK. If some idoit driver hits me, i don't want the stress of trying to battle the insurers

I've been knocked off three times, and CUK sorted things out every time, getting me substantially more in compensation that I would have got myself, and it's free to members.  Worth the membership on its own.

eburtthebike wrote:

The best thing to do is join CUK or another cycling club, as they have excellent, informed, experienced legal people on tap, who will quickly and efficiently sort out the delaying tactics of insurance companies.  The companies have learned that they might as well cough up when faced with them.

+1 Not only does CUK membership give you access to legal support, CUK is also an organisation that campaigns and lobbys for the rights of cyclists in the UK and as such we all benefit from their advocacy. The more members they have the greater the financial resources they have to do this work. 

I agree, I have been a member of Cycling UK for over 20 years, for that purpose.

In my experience, with irrefutable GPS evidence and an in-depth report from the TRL proving the veracity of the data and that it matches the victim's story and absolutely disproves the driver's story... The insurers will still fight it tooth and nail to the very last in an attempt to avoid or reduce the claim, then offer at the 11th hour pn the eve of the court date to pay a proportion of the costs, lost earnings, compensation for loss of internal organs and broken bones, etc.
I think it took over 3 years in the end.

This is typical of dealing with any organisation now; they all fight against claims, regardless of evidence; I've been fighting my government employer for over two years about accepting liability for a workplace injury; my local council engineer made an error in approving a stormwater plan, which resulted in a rectification bill of $10,000 - despite the engineer admitting his mistake, council legal is refusing to accept liability and compensate.

Why do you think anyone else would be any different ?

Mungecrundle

"Had 2 minor claims against motorists. Axa were deliberately obstructive and seemed to rely on ignoring communication in the hope you would go away. Aviva paid out within a few days of submitting my claim."

Can only think that my claims were so clear with video etc and the amounts paid out relatively trivial that it just wasn't worth the cost and effort on their part to drag it out.

Not to comment on the OP as such, but where claims are suspected of being inflated, as an insurance premium paying customer and probably shareholder via pension fund, I'm more than happy that such claims are properly investigated and challenged.

Yeah, i was also paid to the tune of £7,500 by Aviva within a week of having my bike destroyed by their insured a number of years ago.  They also played ball during every step of the personal injury claim i made aswell but that took a year as is often the case.  

I don't think people actually realise how much work goes on in the background to validate claims and especially where there a combination of property damage & personal injury.

Motor insurance pays on an indemnity basis, not new for old, when it comes to third party damage so the offer which Aviva made could well be the value of the bike & clothing now.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Yeah, i was also paid to the tune of £7,500 by Aviva within a week of having my bike destroyed by their insured a number of years ago.  They also played ball during every step of the personal injury claim i made aswell but that took a year as is often the case.  

I don't think people actually realise how much work goes on in the background to validate claims and especially where there a combination of property damage & personal injury.

Motor insurance pays on an indemnity basis, not new for old, when it comes to third party damage so the offer which Aviva made could well be the value of the bike & clothing now.

The insurer should be paying to restore the claimant to the pre accident condition. With used cars it is generally not difficult to find the car of the same model and age to replace the current car, and in fact drivers are generally happy to take the current fair value of the car to upgrade to a newer model. Replacing a bike like for like is less easy. And most cyclists are not in the habbit of upgrading their bike every 3 years to a newer model, as the car manufacturers have managed to trick drivers into doing.

The second hand market for bicycles is no way as developed as with motor vehicles, one of the reasons my bicycle theft and crash replacement insurance is so expensive is that it is new for old.

Xenophon2 wrote:

Stalling, waiting, denying the claim and when the latter's absolutely impossible, making a lowball offer and hoping the other party will choose that over another protracted court battle.  Then, when the offer is declined they'll whip out the calculator if it looks like it's going to court, calculate the cost of litigating the matter and they'll settle, certainly for damages worth only 11k GBP.

Despicable but unfortunately standard operating procedure.  

 

 

Not only as you've described, but when called out they blame the victim, saying they're still waiting information.
I hope the agent (s) making these decisions are able to head home with a warm sense of job satisfaction.