As of late, I have been approached by several people with the same issue. They had no insurance but where hit by a third party(third party fault). They approached the third parties insurance to repair their vehicles as they where not insured at the time. All these people tried to submit a third party claim. In every single instance there claim was for better words rejected using legal precedence.

The legal precedence used was “Due care” or “reasonable care” The insurers response to the third party claim

“It is the duty of all users of the road at all times to keep a proper lookout so as to avoid colliding with other road users. The duty of keeping a proper lookout means more than looking straight ahead. It includes awareness of what is happening in one’s immediate vicinity. A driver should have a view of the whole road from side to side and, in the case of a road passing through a built-up area, as well as the pavements on the side of the road” at this point they will argue that even though the person had right of way, they should have excised “Due care” or “reasonable care” in doing so they would have avoided the collision and the wrong doer. So in a nice way they are stating that even though their client is in the wrong and jumped a red robot(Traffic Light) or stop street, the fault lies with the third party for not giving way to or stopping for a law breaking individual. They seem to be way to comfortable trying to shift the blame to the third party that was not at fault.

One of the latest to come to my attention

Without prejudice to our rights and without admitting any liability and only in an attempt to settle this matter, we herewith offer you 70/30% apportionment. Our calculations are as follows-:

Your market value                                                      R26,050.00

Less 40% salvage                                                     R15,630.00

R15.630.00   x 70%                                                    R10,941.00

Our damages    R88,182.00 x 40%                              R26,454.60

R10,941.00 less R26,454.60                                      R-15,513.60

Due to our quantum being high, your client’s claim has attracted a negative figure. We therefor suggest that each party bear his or her own cost.

I am curious why the FSCA, OSTI and the courts have not gotten behind the third parties that are being bullied by the legal department of insurers. What an atrocious act.