09 Mar 2015

A question about : Defence solicitor says there going to "test the case in court"???

hello
Me and my wife were injuried last year in a road accident.our car was wrote off and we were both hurt.the other driver was 100% in the wrong and admitted to there insurance company days later.we got paid for our car with in a few weeks.
We put in a claim for injuries.then the other driver says months later it was only a tip and we could not of been hurt!there car was never examained by an engineer,but the driver at faults insurance looked at our car and decided to write it off and paid out.
we went to hospital/Gp after accident and any folow up appointments after that.
Now the defence solicitors says they will test the case in court
What does this mean?
I thought you either go to court or you dont?
are the trying to scare us and then hit us wil a really low offer??
I dont mind going to court if i have to.

Best answers:

  • Sounds to me as if rather than make an offer they want to use your case as an example by going to court, letting the court hear the evidence and make it's decision, and if you win determine the level of compensation. They may be fed up of paying out to everyone who claims and want to get a firmer basis on which to accept or reject claims in future.
  • It may just mean the solicitors couldn't agree on a level of compensation. If they can't settle then it has to go to court.
  • It seems obvious that if the case is about the level of payment for your injuries that both sides will want to present/question the medical evidence relating to your injuries. I don't know what that evidence is but presumably you do.
    These are really questions that you should be putting to your solicitor as they will know what your side of the argument will be and have a good guess at what the other side will ask.
  • Sorry to ask but is your claim for soft tissue injury (whiplash) If so they are clamping down on this and threatening court action. I may have to go to court as I am disputing an accident (not my fault) other party went into back of me are claiming whiplash compensation, I am not. Damage to cars appears to be scratches.
  • going to hospital is hardly a reason to claim thousands. Unfortunately there has been that much almost automatic payout and why shouldn't they go to court to see your evidence?
  • I dont mind going to court explaining my side and the impact the crash had.
    As for going to the hospital,i just ment we were consisant with a road traffic accident after the crash.some people might go to the doctor/hospital days later "after talkig" to someone.
    Is it not in the interest for them to settle before court,other than take the "gamble"
  • How are your solicitor fees being paid, is it no win no fee? If it goes to court it may cost you more than you win.
  • Since you went to the hospital, what medical treatment have you received afterwards? I.e. a week after the crash and onwards?
  • got treatment for months after and still getting it.my wife was alright few months after
  • You really ought to ask your solicitors to explain in clear understandable terms what is actually going on with your claim.
    I deal with this for a living, but there are way too many variables as to what could be causing the current problems.
  • Have they made any actual offers?
  • no,nothing yet.they paid for the wrote of car very quickly after accident.
  • They could be making attempts to challenge the injury as a "low velocity impact", but insurers have a horrific record of successfully challenging such cases and usually end up getting a good hiding.
    I would just keep in touch with your solicitors and give them any instructions, information and assistance they need from you to make sure the case is properly prepared for litigation.
    Usually the insurers come to their senses, but insurers and common sense are rarely on the same page.
  • You are holding all teh trump cards as this is all evidence based.
    It does indeed sound like the insurers are getting excited by "but I barely touched them" comments from their insured and so they decide to start attempting a defence of the claim.
    As I said previously, they have a really poor track record of succeeding with such defences and they either get a hiding at court, or belatedly come to their senses.
    So long as you are credible with your description, so long as there is a meaningful degree of damage to your vehicle that is accident related and so long as you have supporting medical evidence attributing the injuries to the index accident, the insurers are unlikely to succeed.
    You mentioned earlier that the accident aggravated injuries you already had. So long as your pre-accident medical conditions have been disclosed and the medical report you are relying on acknowledges that you already had some problems, you will be fine.
    Credibility is what wins the day with these battles. If for example the medical report your solicitors have obtained makes no mention as to how you already had say a back injury and the Dr report is saying all the problems you now complain of are due to the accident, this is when you would lose credibility as it would appear you had attempted to disguise relevant pre-accident history from the Dr and therefore his opinion is flawed.
    When stuff like that happens, you lose your credibility and any benefit of doubt.
    So long as you are clean and honest with your descriptions etc, the odds are you would either win your day in court, or the other side will have a belated attack of common sense.
  • Onan is right in what he says. It does sound from what you've said like the other side are looking to suggest that this is an LVI, though making such an allegation when the car has been written off is surprising to say the least. I'd say it's still worth getting your solicitor to clarify exactly what the issue is.
  • Depending on how long ago the incident was, odds are the insurers have probably not operated within the guidelines of Casey v Cartright as far as collating the evidence is concerned
Категория: