ok my father had an accident 3 year sback…hes the defendent, he hit the claimant from the back whilst driving…and back then both got compensation for damage to veheicle etc.
anyway now 3 yrs later, dont know what the ******* claimant wants, but shes issued court proceedings, and now the insurers after investigationg are syaing maybe there was fraudelent activity on both parts.how does this make any sense, how can mydad be involvd in any scam when he wont get anything out of it as hes not claiming now, she is.
also they are making accusations that dnt make sense ie..when asked my dad where he was going that day at 5pm, he was hesitant in giving a name``…
wtf..is this a terrorism case or a simple road accident one…whats that got to do with anything…how can this be staged, when he wont get anything out of it…anyway we know this is wrong, but they are saying if they win and its concluded as joint liable him and claimantwhat happens…he willl need to pay..and its not evne his fault.
am so angry.
can anyone make any sense of this as my heads gonna spin off.
one is that the lady your dad hits wants to sue to get more, whether she is complaining about some medical issues and injuries or something else is something you did not share
Now, the insurance company is playing hardball and have some suspicion that there is foul play.
what they are trying to say is that lets say you and I know each other, I hit you, you sue me, well I dont pay my insurance pays, and if we are in cahoots, i can be getting a cut.
I would just get a good lawyer and first figure out the basis of their case. The burden is going to be on them to prove their claims.
yeah i know. however the insurers are not giving my father indemnity, and obv think theres a partnership here. and yes she is saying that shes in pain and whatnot, however her case is against her, as shes used that car over 3 times to get a similar claim...so it looks bad on her anyway.
however, my dad gets nothing out of this, the value of the car was alot more at the time than what the insurers paid out to him once his car was damaged, he woudlve got more had he sold the car...so doesnt make sense..because the car was written off.
he seems to be more of a pawn in this, their goal seems to be to not pay this woman for her med bills and the easiest way out is to claim that this was fraud. their beef may be with her, but since she has done this before, they may be thinking your dad was an accomplice.
They still need to prove it, I would still say get a good lawyer.
ps...is it too late for us to get a lawyer in. I mean the solictor defending the insurers did advise us to get one, however the case is heard 2mrw, but my dad doesnt need to attend. once after case decision given, do we get a lawyer then..or is it too late.
I suppose if the verdict is against you guys you can appeal it but dont know for sure. I am not sure at this short of a notice you guys can get a lawyer who can do much, but calling a couple will not hurt to see what their take it on the situation. it being end of day, not sure what is possible.
but the case is against her and my dads insurers..so if she wins, my dad has to pay her ruight? or if she loses, and the insurers win, then my dad still has to pay as they are not covering his expenses. ??
i hope ur talking of uk law. im not sure she has med bill.s maybe. didnt specify.
something is prompting the insurance to revisit this years after the incident. essentially this lady has shot herself in the foot by coming for more and has popped on her radar. your dad is just caught in the crossfire between the insurers and this lady. They may bring up her history to say that she is a fraud and based on that they dont have to pay her jack, and your dad may not be shown as an accomplice but a victim or unaware accomplice in this situation in which case he has nothing to lose there. These are just my thoughts, but as I said you probably should have consulted with a lawyer in this specialty
but the case is against her and my dads insurers..so if she wins, my dad has to pay her ruight? or if she loses, and the insurers win, then my dad still has to pay as they are not covering his expenses. ??
it could be the case, or if the entire case is a drama and bogus and thrown out, she may have no grounds to come after your dad anyway, question is how is the case structured. you guys should be ready for either situation and prepared to get your own lawyer if this things goes south
ok my father had an accident 3 year sback...hes the defendent, he hit the claimant from the back whilst driving...and back then both got compensation for damage to veheicle etc.
anyway now 3 yrs later, dont know what the ******* claimant wants, but shes issued court proceedings, and now the insurers after investigationg are syaing maybe there was fraudelent activity on both parts.how does this make any sense, how can mydad be involvd in any scam when he wont get anything out of it as hes not claiming now, she is.
also they are making accusations that dnt make sense ie..when asked my dad where he was going that day at 5pm, he was hesitant in giving a name``...
wtf..is this a terrorism case or a simple road accident one...whats that got to do with anything...how can this be staged, when he wont get anything out of it...anyway we know this is wrong, but they are saying if they win and its concluded as joint liable him and claimantwhat happens...he willl need to pay..and its not evne his fault.
am so angry.
can anyone make any sense of this as my heads gonna spin off.
Two points need to be explained.
1- How is not your dad's fault? He rear-ended someone.
2- How he is not covered?
Regardless who is at fault, if he was fully insured at the time of sccident, then insurance should pay. Unless he had a limit to his coverage...and claim is more than his coverage. Even then he should fight and either get it dismissed or reduce the claim somehow. He needs a lawyer to appeal depending on if it is worth the expenses and chance of him winning. At least get advise from a lawyer.
In US, accident victims usually have 7 years to initiate a lawsuit, the reasoning being that some injuries become more troublesome over time. And rear-end accidents are automatically deemed to be the fault of the rear-ender.
Sounds like this lady is going for a personal injury lawsuit. Insurance company usually pays this. but sounds like they may be trying to say that your dad was impaired in some way (ie., he didnt know where he was going).
If he's asked to pay anything, get an attorney right away.
NOW the solicitor for the insurers has told me that for the corresspondance thye will add up to the costs. i simply emailed him a few times mostly to ask a simple question about if my dad needs to be present at the hearing etc, and he never said anything then, and now after a few emails, hes suddenly said oh by the way we will be adding up the costs of this corrsspondance should our claim be successful...!!!!!
AM SOOOO ANGRY. CAN HE DO THIS. im sure he shouldve told me before in the first email of this.
NOW the solicitor for the insurers has told me that for the corresspondance thye will add up to the costs. i simply emailed him a few times mostly to ask a simple question about if my dad needs to be present at the hearing etc, and he never said anything then, and now after a few emails, hes suddenly said oh by the way we will be adding up the costs of this corrsspondance should our claim be successful...!!!!!
AM SOOOO ANGRY. CAN HE DO THIS. im sure he shouldve told me before in the first email of this.
They can try to add to the cost but you can get a lawyer to get out of it. That is simple rip-off.
Anyhow the insurance should have a reason not to pay. Impaired not imparied, your dad was insured. Read the policy and the section where they cover the driver in case of being impaired.
Insi\urance should pay the other party if your dad was fully covered (at least the liability portion or third party-TP coverage) at the time of the accident. That is what the liability coverage is for and is mandatory for everyone. For example you can choose not to have comprehensive coverage and will not be paid for your vehicle, but other party will still be the responsibility of the insurance company.
Try not to talk with these people yourself. You do have choice to sue the insurance company if you have strong case and your dad was covered. Talk to a laywer. Keep the original insurance policy safe and do not give it to anyone.
thanks alot, is there a term used legally for this rip off by him. and yes dad was fully insured thats why the insurance company paid him for his car which was written off and to the claimant too back in 2007. i have no idea why 3 years later they are bringing this out the woodwork-i suspect she is, however now they are saying it may have been a staged accident....most of the case is about how claimant has been fraudelent, the only thing they are sayin about my dad is that he was nervoushesistant etc when asked questions....simple reason here is my dads not a native english speaker...he has to think before he speaks in english...and it comes across as if hes nervous...they also said we asked him where he was gonig that day at 5pm.....and his answer was hesistant..lol...this has nothing to do with the case right?
i can understand if a wife asks her husband where hes going, and if hes going to see another women, why he would be nervous...and hesitant...but this is not that case and so this doesnt justifty why they think my dads involved right.
You dad may well be innocent but hesitancy automatically puts the case into the fraud category, regardless of the circumstances and it will get automatically sent of to the fraud department. Your dad could get you or one of your siblings to speak on his behalf, if he gives authority, and you could explain the full details.
Furthermore, staged accidents are becoming more and more common. Maybe the circumstances where such which highlighted common fraud indicators hence the thorough investigations now.
is there a legal terminology used for solicitors who rip off people.
and what are the chances that the lawyers can prove fraud on my dads side.....as burden is on them....
also if he does lose, and has to pay, how does this payment go about...all at once...or in instalment or how? i dont think dad can pay a few thousand just like that.