Mr A wins compensation and proves his claim was not fraudulent

Accident Circumstances

Mr A was on his way to Wolverhampton. He had been to Telford to complete the sale of his takeaway shop and also to see some friends.Mr A was in the car with two of his friends when the vehicle in to his right turned sharply left and into his path. Mr A managed to miss this vehicle by breaking but the defendant who was in the vehicle behind him failed to observe the traffic and collided with the rear of Mr A’s car this vehicle was then shunted in the rear by a lorry.

–        Mr A contacted Clearwater Solicitors to pursue a personal injury compensation claim.

– Clearwater solicitors contacted the third party insurers and they stated that the claim had been reported to them.

The Defendants View

The third party insurers stated that their insured had exited off the motorway. The two cars in front of her had stopped due to bad weather, the car in front (Mr A’s vehicle) stopped and she just managed to stop in time. The defendant stated that the vehicle behind her did not manage to stop in time and collided with into her therefore shunting her into the rear of Mr A’s vehicle.

–        The defendant stated that the only damage to Mr A’s vehicle was a scratch on the rear bumper.

–        The claim was accepted by Clearwater Solicitors and the case was allocated to Mr Ahmed on the portal team.

–        The road traffic accident claim was submitted onto the portal.

–        The third party failed to respond to the claim on the portal within the specified period. The claim left the portal and was transferred to Mr

Yaqub, head of Clearwater Solicitors litigation team.

–        The third party refused to admit liability because they had on going investigations. They requested that Mr A went for a medical examination to support his claim.

–        Mr A’s car was inspected by an engineer. The engineer stated that the repairs to the vehicle would cost £1008.20. The engineer classed the vehicle as a category D total loss. This was because it would cost more to repair the vehicle that the actual pre accident value.

–        Mr Yaqub contacted the third party insurers and they stated that they held the lorry driver responsible for the collision because he failed to observe the traffic ahead and also the weather conditions. The third party solicitors stated that the claim should be re directed to the lorry driver’s insurance company.

How we resolved the case

Mr A was sent a questionnaire regarding the road traffic accident. He was asked how many impacts he felt at the time of the collision. He said that he felt one impact and then heard an impact from outside. He was also asked about what happened after the road traffic accident. He stated that the defendant got out of her car and asked if he was ok. She admitted liability and then they exchanged details.

–        Mr A accepted the engineer’s valuation for his vehicle of £927.

–        The third party still would not admit liability they still said that the driver of the lorry was at fault.

–        Mr Yaqub wrote to the lorry drivers’ insurance company stating that the third party insurance company believed their driver to be at fault for the accident because he drove at a speed that was excessive in the circumstances.

–        He also wrote again to the defendant’s insurers stating that they should deal with Mr A’s claim. He advised them that he had sent a letter to the lorry driver’s insurers stating the same and if one of them did not offer to settle he would have to issue proceedings against both of them.

–        He referred to the Sanderson Bullock order, where the unsuccessful defendant is ordered to pay the successful defendant’s costs direct to the successful defendant. Also, the unsuccessful defendant will have to pay the Mr A’s costs incurred in respect of the claim against the unsuccessful defendant.

–        Mr Yaqub received the medical report from the expert and it stated that Mr A suffered from shock, neck pain and also upper and lower back pain.

–        The lorry driver’s insurers were once again contacted and questioned for their stance on liability. They said that they would not comment as they were still waiting for a statement and collision diagram from their client. However, they advised that they believed the claim was fraudulent.

–        The defendant’s insurers wrote to Mr Yaqub and they stated that they would deal with the case on a without prejudice basis to keep the case out of court.

–        Mr Yaqub and Mr A both agreed that this was a good idea because Mr A wanted to settle his car accident claim.

–        Soon after this Mr A received a cheque for the damage incurred to his vehicle.

–        The medical report was sent to the third party and they were given 21 days to respond with offers regarding personal injury.

–        The third party entered a part 36 offer of £2,300 in respect of settling Mr A’s personal injury claim.

–        This was rejected by Mr A and a counter offer was submitted for the sum of £2,800 by Mr Yaqub.

–        Mr A agreed to settle his personal injury claim for the sum of £2600 plus his vehicle damage of £927.

–        This amounted to a full and final settlement of £2527.00

How can Clearwater Solicitors help you

Clearwater Solicitors are experienced in handling car accident claims where there is more than one defendant and neither of them will admit liability. If you think you have a case or require further information contact Clearwater on 08000 430 430 or fill in the online call back request.