Sign up with GoogleHi there. My mother was involved in an accident with an insured of a certain commercial insurer. There was a wealth of witnesses, some having had to chase the man down as they thought that he was making a run for it.
They rejected my mother's third party claim on the basis of her being at fault. They said that even though he had overtaken three cars in the lane of on coming traffic, my mother should have kept a lookout. The cited a case law supporting this only in the case that the two cars were following each other and in my mother's case she had satisfied herself enough that following traffic had heeded to her intention to turn right because traffic had halted behind her.
I complained to the consultant who then told me that it didn't matter how many cars their client had to overtake on a single carriageway, my mother should have anticipated that happening and should have been on the lookout.
I had to dig around the internet to find the appropriate people to complain to as the consultant I was dealing with made it seem that the next was legal action in every interaction with her. I included their head of everything that I could find on the good old interwebs.
They reviewed the case after I submitted a complaint to SAIA only to come up with the most bizarre of conclusions.
They claimed that their client now maintained that he was directly following my mother and that she had not indicated making the right turn. They also claimed that all parties had agreed that the incident had happened around a traffic circle. I responded by stating that the new version was clearly fabricated because the incident location does not have a traffic circle, that if it had happened around a traffic circle then both incident descriptions instantly become improbable because one does not simply turn right in a traffic circle and finally that we had never mentioned a traffic circle let alone agreed to there having been one at any point in our communication.
Shortly after that their head of liabilities tries to call me, but I was not available at the time. She then sends an email and includes my employer in the email!!!! I must disclose that my employer is also an insurer, but I am failing to see a reason why that happened?
The third party has been kind enough to offer to pay for the damages out of pocket meaning that I do not have to deal with their insurer, but I really do feel like taking the matter further with regulatory bodies. They lied and tried to bully me away. Surely there should be some recourse somewhere.
They rejected my mother's third party claim on the basis of her being at fault. They said that even though he had overtaken three cars in the lane of on coming traffic, my mother should have kept a lookout. The cited a case law supporting this only in the case that the two cars were following each other and in my mother's case she had satisfied herself enough that following traffic had heeded to her intention to turn right because traffic had halted behind her.
I complained to the consultant who then told me that it didn't matter how many cars their client had to overtake on a single carriageway, my mother should have anticipated that happening and should have been on the lookout.
I had to dig around the internet to find the appropriate people to complain to as the consultant I was dealing with made it seem that the next was legal action in every interaction with her. I included their head of everything that I could find on the good old interwebs.
They reviewed the case after I submitted a complaint to SAIA only to come up with the most bizarre of conclusions.
They claimed that their client now maintained that he was directly following my mother and that she had not indicated making the right turn. They also claimed that all parties had agreed that the incident had happened around a traffic circle. I responded by stating that the new version was clearly fabricated because the incident location does not have a traffic circle, that if it had happened around a traffic circle then both incident descriptions instantly become improbable because one does not simply turn right in a traffic circle and finally that we had never mentioned a traffic circle let alone agreed to there having been one at any point in our communication.
Shortly after that their head of liabilities tries to call me, but I was not available at the time. She then sends an email and includes my employer in the email!!!! I must disclose that my employer is also an insurer, but I am failing to see a reason why that happened?
The third party has been kind enough to offer to pay for the damages out of pocket meaning that I do not have to deal with their insurer, but I really do feel like taking the matter further with regulatory bodies. They lied and tried to bully me away. Surely there should be some recourse somewhere.
