Had a shunt in my car today - can I claim?

[Normal Rob]

The best thing you've done is take photo's. This will 110% work in your favour if she makes a claim.
I'd strongly suggest you let Admiral know the scenario, make sure you tell them you've got pics and there were no passengers in her car, it's V important.
Unfortunately, I doubt you could claim but that's entirely up to you.
Do not be surprised if you get a call or letter from a Solicitors firm or her/you insurance company alerting you that a claim is being made.
Best to just let them know?

if they do that can i suggest that you DO NOT release their number plate onto NSC, otherwis some fool might try to exact some form of (minor) revenge against the bitch. That would be awful.

 

[Birdie Boy]

You can claim all you like, but as a driver, it's your responsibility to be aware of what's going on around you, particularly in front of you. The other driver has slowed- you say- because they wanted to make sure the junction was clear, which is reasonable and recommended. A green light, as per the Highway Code, means you may proceed if the way is clear, which in your case, it obviously wasn't.

There may be degrees of blame to be attributed in this case if you think she pulled out in front of you without checking mirrors, but I think that would only ever mean she would accept SOME of the responsibility rather than none as with a normal rear end shunt. I cannot see her insurer agreeing to pay out in your favour under any circumstances, because it will be your word against her, and they could (I emphasise could, not will) simply say you hit them from behind and deny any lane changing on their part.

I think you just have to swallow this one. By the way, I know it's not remotely tempting to involve the insurers if you don't have to, but technically (in most cases I'm aware of anyway) you are required to notify your insurer of all collisions you're involved in, regardless of whether you mean to make a claim or not. IF she was to make a claim without telling you, the first your insurer would hear about it is from her, not you, which might leave you in an awkward position. Just a bit of friendly advice

Corrected for you

 

[father_and_son]

So....I was happily driving along the A27 towards Lewes this morning and approached the Kingston roundabout quite pleased to see a green light and a clear lane ahead of me....kept making good progress and slowed down as i reached the junction.....had a quick look to the right to make sure cars had stopped at the lights from that direction....looked back ahead of me to find that a car had pulled out of the lane to my left and stopped at the green light....saw them too late....hit the anchors....but didnt stop in time and hit the back of them.

Their explanation for stopping at the green light was that they didnt think the traffic approaching from the left was going to stop at the lights so they stopped.

Now I know normally if you hit the back of someone you are on a sticky wicket. But in this case I really feel I am not to blame. They pulled out in front me and then stopped. No witnesses....my word against hers. They admitted they pulled out and stopped but I guess they can change their story pretty easily.

I took a few photos and checked they were ok, had no whiplash etc and exchanged details. They said they were fine and didnt want to bother with insurance claims even though they were adamant it was my fault.

What do you think.....have I got a case to claim on their insurance or will I get the blame regardless?

I am an underwriter for a large insurance group... Your insurer will be carrying the costs for this one with potential no claims bonus and claim loading impacts on you next year - no doubt at all - this is as straight forward a liability decision as they come. Regardless of how stupid the other person's maneuver is you must always leave time and distance to react to it and avoid a collision. Sorry.

In the circumstances above I would be HIGHLY suspicious of anyone who knows that they are not at fault but still doesn't want to involve insurers. How much damage was there? From the way you describe it, I wouldn't be surprised if they are lacking one or more vital documents themselves... no insurance, no tax and/or no licence - hence the desire to keep insurers out of it. Also, were the police involved its highly possible that they could be charged with a CD10 (Driving without due care and attention to other road users) for making a dangerous maneuver which resulted in an accident- this wouldn't get you off the insurance hook but would impact them.

 

[father_and_son]

I got one of those dash cams in my van, Only £18 great bit of kit, if it ever happen to me i hope it would proved conclusively what happened.
For the the insurance bods on here, do all insurance companies accept video evidence?

It helps but it isn't going to guarantee you don't get the blame - ultimately, the simple rule is that you must leave time and distance to react - so unless someone cuts you up and there was no way that any "reasonable" individual could have foreseen and reacted - then all the video in the world means nothing. The cameras can't see 360 degrees and at the moment of impact, it often jolts enough to make the playback useless (depends on how its mounted).

Elsewhere in Europe this sort of thing has its legal value already established (Italy for example is way ahead of us with this technology) but its still untested in the courts here. Everyone in the industry wants the Judiciary to make a ruling but no-one wants to pay the lawyers to take a single claim that far. The Government have made noises about a law change but are painfully slow.

 

[drew]

I am an underwriter for a large insurance group... Your insurer will be carrying the costs for this one with potential no claims bonus and claim loading impacts on you next year - no doubt at all - this is as straight forward a liability decision as they come. Regardless of how stupid the other person's maneuver is you must always leave time and distance to react to it and avoid a collision. Sorry.

In the circumstances above I would be HIGHLY suspicious of anyone who knows that they are not at fault but still doesn't want to involve insurers. How much damage was there? From the way you describe it, I wouldn't be surprised if they are lacking one or more vital documents themselves... no insurance, no tax and/or no licence - hence the desire to keep insurers out of it. Also, were the police involved its highly possible that they could be charged with a CD10 (Driving without due care and attention to other road users) for making a dangerous maneuver which resulted in an accident- this wouldn't get you off the insurance hook but would impact them.

Don't think you have completely understood the scenario. My understanding is that the woman was in the left hand lane and the OP in the right hand lane as they approached the roundabout. The woman then drove into the right hand lane immediately in front of the OP and stopped. Had she stopped in the left hand lane the accident wouldn't have happened. Therefore based on those circumstances the OP is not at fault. The problem is proving it. Having said that, the insurers will take the line of least resistance and will not dispute any claim from the woman unless there is evidence to counter it, ie where the damage is on both cars or cctv evidence. Having had a quick scan on google streetview, it does look like there are some cctv cameras so the op may be in luck.