Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Insurance claim

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Anthony88, Feb 19, 2008.

  1. Since this is a motorbike forum and the chances of someone on here of being involved in a road accident in the past is quite high, I thought I might take advantage of that and ask if anyone knew whether an insurance company pays for you legal bills such as your solicitor. This is in the case of you being not reliable and the other drivers fault was 100%. Are there any hidden fees that you should be worried about. ANd also any examples of how much you got and then ended up with in your pocket would also be appreciated. And yes, I was involved in an accident.

  2. if your fully insured and the other party has admitted liability then its straight forward but if they do not then it may go to court and in the mean time you will have to cough up the excess to get your bike fixed and if in court its proved to be the other drivers fault or the other insurance company may admit liability depending on the evidence provided you will then get your excess back.

    if it cant be proven then you both pay exess and it most likely wont go to court

    if liability can be proven it will go to court and you will hopefully win and you get your excess back

    either way its up to your insurance company to go after who is at fault and that all depends on wittnesses police reports and statements etc.

    if theres any personal injuries i have no idea
  3. Most of the insurance companies are in bed with each other nowadays anyways, and more often than not don't go to court unless they have to.
  4. In the case where the matter is being handled through your insurance, they will handle it all. There would be no requirement to hire a solicitor.

    Where you do hire a solicitor, there may well be some costs that you personally will have to pay, irrespective of the outcome of the matter. (Even if you win in court).

    If you can you should try and negotiate an amount sufficient to cover legal bills.
  5. You might get a surprise here. Blame is always shared.
    What you're saying is that there was absolutly no humanly way without an act of god, you could have avoided the accident.
    Are you sure?...........................
  6. This accident involved me being struck of my pushy at the age of 5, the law does not see a 5 year old kid fit to understand, "if I cross road I might get hit by car" whereas from the age of 10 I think, the payment is based on percentages of the drivers fault and your own fault.
  7. 5! how old are you now? how long ago was this?
    Im sure there would be a statute of limitation but i could be wrong
  8. judging my his username i would say 19/20 making it 14/15 years ago.

    there might be a case,

    my friend sued his primary school for duty of care when he was 17 got 20K too the bastard that was 10-12 years after the fact
  9. There is no limitation, only that the court proceedings occur as soon as possible. 20k thats nothing.
  10. in context

    he fell out of a tree and broke his arm, if he didn't climb the tree he wouldn't have fell

    i'd take a broken arm for 20 grand
  11. There are limitations on bringing actions.
    For example:

    The Limitation of Actions Act (Vic):

    27D. Limitation period for personal injury actions-general

    (1) An action in respect of a cause of action to which this Part applies shall
    not be brought after the expiration of whichever of the following periods is
    the first to expire-

    (a) the period of 3 years from the date on which the cause of action is
    discoverable by the plaintiff;

    (b) the period of 12 years from the date of the act or omission alleged to
    have resulted in the death or personal injury with which the action is

    (2) This section does not apply to a cause of action that is founded on a
    personal injury to a person who was under a disability at the date of the act
    or omission alleged to have resulted in the personal injury.