There was no photos taken in this case.

Why should they rely on a non independent and non professional photo observation.

 

Sorry, I wasn't referring to this case, maybe it wasn't clear.

The point is, if it's one word against another and you have the foresight to take photographs of the scene etc (as they suggest) then why would your OWN insurer dismiss them as being 'not independent' enough? Who else will take photographs in such a situation if the police aren't there or there are no witnesses? Some evidence is better than none surely, especially when the statement of the 3rd party is 'creative' or their insurer asks them not to imply liability?

If the insurers settle 50/50 between themselves it benefits them as both parties' premiums go up and they don't have to pay for court costs etc. Call me cynical but from my own experience, Dreamer's above and other people's stories this would seem to be the case

 

You need to look at the bigger picture. All insurers have to live with each other in the same market. They all follow a certain herd instinct. If one starts playing hard ball, then all will which arguably leaves no-one better off.

It's a more efficient market the way it is


I've said this before but there are good arguments for making motor insurance nationalised.

 

Hmm, maybe on all points, but their approach just adds more insult to something which is already a hassle i.e. a claim/accident which you know isn't your fault. It's all well and good you paying a premium for something you HAVE to have and them making a profit, until something happens and then it leaves a bitter taste sadly

P.S. Sorry Gritty for going off on a slight OT rant

 

No worries. I got my answer ages ago. Do what you want with the thread now. I'd forgotten I'd even posted it.