Outsurance sues cyclist

[sharkbait]

There were no damages to the bike, cylist had a few scrathes but all left the scene happy. No statements were made to the Police as the driver said he'll pay for the access. I just want to clarify that the driver is not part of the picture - all Outsurance. After I called them they said that if the cyclist doesn't pay it becomes a civil case which they will open. The cyclist has ignored it but he received a very pressing letter to come forward. This happened in PTA - Van Der Hoff Rd - no cameras either.

[Kritzie]

Could only have been a roadie, mountainbikes have disc brakes.

[sharkbait]

Could only have been a roadie, mountainbikes have disc brakes.

HAHA - roadie

[awesme]

maybe time to approach the driver and state that yes he reversed into the path of the cyclist...

 

maybe as simple as that?

 

G

 

There were no damages to the bike, cylist had a few scrathes but all left the scene happy. No statements were made to the Police as the driver said he'll pay for the access. I just want to clarify that the driver is not part of the picture - all Outsurance. After I called them they said that if the cyclist doesn't pay it becomes a civil case which they will open. The cyclist has ignored it but he received a very pressing letter to come forward. This happened in PTA - Van Der Hoff Rd - no cameras either.

[Wet Ears]

The onus of proof vests with the claimant. If no witnesses it is driver's word vs cyclists. It is up to insurance company to prove that the vehicle was stationary, how do they do that?

 

To be honest, if one had to apply simple logic the benefit of the doubt would go to the cyclist in my humble opinion.

 

I think they are taking a chance and any lawyer worth his/her salt will shoot them down in court. I would respond by saying that you/your mate will be engaging legal counsel and remind them that if they lose the case there will be a costs order against them.

 

On a balance of probabilities they shouldn't take it to court, my guess is that they are taking a chance and hoping you/your mate will roll over and pay.

 

My 2 cents.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Wet Ears

[Helpmytrap]

maybe time to approach the driver and state that yes he reversed into the path of the cyclist...

 

maybe as simple as that?

 

G

Might not be in the drivers best interests as Outsurance may go after him instead?

[Metzet]

aahh, that's how they get the money to pay the outbonus !

 

if there is a vehicle tracking system on the car, they may be able to see if the car was switched on and by how much it moved.

I have a transport business and we use this all the time and its accurate !

[awesme]

don't tell the driver that.

 

and well if this ends in court then he will be required to make a legal statement anyhow.

 

G

 

Might not be in the drivers best interests as Outsurance may go after him instead?

[Wannabe]

aahh, that's how they get the money to pay the outbonus !

 

if there is a vehicle tracking system on the car, they may be able to see if the car was switched on and by how much it moved.

I have a transport business and we use this all the time and its accurate !

 

Getting mine in December!!

[GBguy]

Don't ignore the claim.

 

Write them a letter explaining the real version of what happened, and make it clear that you do not consider yourself to be at fault, and that you will defend any action that they institute.

 

Unless they are very sure they can prove otherwise (with witnesses), they won't summons you.

 

Well, like I said, I'm not a lawyer. But if I was, I would be very happy if the sucker... sorry, the respondent, wrote a letter, because unless he's really clever and well informed, he's going to give me ammunition to use against him. The mere fact that he responds is an admission that he was the other party in this affair.

 

What I would want least of all, as a lawyer, is that the sucker... sorry, respondent, says nothing, because this means I have to charge my clients (oh, that's right, it's Outsurance) to take this all the way to court without any indication of what the sucker... sorry, respondent, is going to say to the judge. The chances are that my clients, even with their deep pockets, will decide they have better ways to squander their pots of money than on a cyclist who put a dent in a supposedly stationary car.

 

IMHO of course. I wouldn't give this another thought - they aren't worth it.

[awesme]

Question though, damage on boot implies rider ended on boot?

back window broken, hmm, to accomplish that allot of force had to be excerpted, they're pretty strong, and all of this with no damage to bike.

 

where was the contact between bike and car, at the rear, or on the side, if side then easy to show car was reversing, otherwise why was the damage to the side, if the rear, a bit more difficult since driver/outsurance can say he already pulled out, was about to move forward when bike hit rear.

 

just asking.

 

G

 

So a cyclist is cycling down a parking lot and a guy in his car reverses out infront of the cyclist, the cyclist had nowhere to go but to hit the car. Ok, back window broken and a small dent on the boot. Two months down the line the cyclist receives a letter from Outsurance to pay R16K + for the damages caused. Reasons: the cyclist was in the wrong as he should have avoided the reversing car. After calling the number on the letter it was said that the driver said he was stationary and the cyclist rode into the back of the vechile. I said but he was reversing out and the laywer said that I have to prove that the vechile was moving. My question is how is this possible to sue the cyclist? To prove that the vechile was moving is out of the question so what remains is for the cyclist to just fork out the money. When has the law changed in favour of the driver? Any advise?

Edited November 20, 2013 by awesme

[Falco]

There were no damages to the bike, cylist had a few scrathes but all left the scene happy. No statements were made to the Police as the driver said he'll pay for the access. I just want to clarify that the driver is not part of the picture - all Outsurance. After I called them they said that if the cyclist doesn't pay it becomes a civil case which they will open. The cyclist has ignored it but he received a very pressing letter to come forward. This happened in PTA - Van Der Hoff Rd - no cameras either.

 

The driver is not part of the picture because his car has been fixed, and Outsurance paid for it. He doesn't even know about this claim.

 

Standard practice is to allocate a claim to a panelbeater for repair, and an in-house attorney for recovery. This attorney has two tasks ~ recover the amount paid to the panelbeater, and recover the excess paid by the client.

 

If the 16k is collected, they recover their money and pay the excess amount back to the client. If not recovered, they take the loss.

 

This is standard practice at Outsurance. Until their legal dept is satisfied that they have exhausted all recovery options, they will continue to attempt to get you to pay.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Falco

[JGR]

Sharkbait - I'm not a lawyer, and you may get a very different answer from one. However...

 

To me this is typical insurance company bullying tactics. Their first course of action is to send an invoice to the other guy (the one who is not their client) and see if he pays.

 

If I were in your shoes, I'd ignore it completely. One of two things will happen. Either you will never hear from them again, or you will be summonsed (after a bunch of threatening letters) to appear in court. When you do, after he has finished laughing, the magistrate will say he finds it difficult to imagine a cyclist deliberately riding into a stationary vehicle, and also it boils down to your word against the other guy, so stop wasting the court's time.

What he said

 

I was hit by another driver without insurance. My insurer tried to get the money from him and he laughed them off. They never got the money from him.

[atilla]

This could all be avoided if he was on a 29er

[MONS]

I loathe OUTSURANCE..... they claimed the same - quick background.... driving down road... big security estate on left and side road on right with stop street. Ford KA comes towards stop street.... and stops. I see Ford KA.... keep driving as I have right of way. At last minute, Ford KA pulls away from stop street. I slam brakes (in a double cab) and try swerve but hit the KA. We pull over. Swop info.. have witnesses (the tow in guys are parked at the entrance to the estate.. I know the one guy. Get signed statement.

 

After much to and fro-ing (OUTSURANCE service SUCKS ) I finally get a letter from them stating that I SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT THE KA WAS GOING TO PULL OUT AND WAS NOT OBSERVING THE ROAD. I OWED THEM over 5k in damages. Car was written off. My insurance company was blown away by this response.... OUTSURANCE presumes that people are now psychic and are able to predict the future. Any excuse to not pay out. I cut my losses... but will NEVER EVER EVER use them as my insurance company.

Edited November 20, 2013 by MONS

[Trelawney]

I had an incident a few years back in my car. I drive up the back of someone on an off ramp after a sudden thunderstorm. I was told I had 30 days to alert my insurance company. The guy I hit also alerted his insurance company at some point but, when the lawyers letter came asking me for R30k it was some 6 months later. So I took the insurance letter to my insurance company and they laughed at it. They said that he would have had to contact his own insurance company within 30 days of me hitting him and then his insurance company had a further 30 days to contact my insurance company. As this hadn't happened, I could ignore it. I left the letter with them and never heard anything further. If it's over the two months perhaps whatever principle applied then applies here in some way ? I was told they were just writing a bullying letter to see if I would pay. I assume his insurance paid him out and were then trying to get their money back from me.