Road traffic accident (RTA) claims are one of the most well known types of claims to injury lawyers and to the general public. The claims are highly publicised on television, radio and in newspapers as personal injury lawyers compete for your business in a highly competitive market.
RTA’s can of course happen in many different circumstances from the classic rear end shunt to accidents at roundabouts to accidents caused as a result of vehicles changing lanes. As with any RTA claim, the insurer representing the Defendant will investigate the claim and decide whether to accept liability (fault) or dispute liability on behalf of their insured.
It is not viable for insurance companies to dispute each and every claim for the sake of doing so; such action would be both time consuming and expensive. The costs of bringing a claim for compensation are likely to be considerably higher if there is an argument as to who is at fault for an accident.
The Claimants solicitors costs would be paid by the insurance company if the Claimants claim was successful – so needlessly arguing over who is at fault in what is a clearly obvious and straightforward matter is pointless. In a classic rear end shunt type case, you may expect the Defendants insurer to concede liability in the interest of saving costs. However, this is not always the case. An insurer can raise a defence of Low Velocity Impact (LVI). This is where an insurer accepts that their insured has been negligent in causing the accident but alleges that the accident occurred at such a slow speed or velocity that it could not have caused the injuries alleged by the Claimant. Such an argument relates to what is known in the legal world as causation. The Claimant must reasonably prove that the accident caused the alleged injuries or made existing injuries worse (known as an exacerbation injury – say if you had a previous back injury that has been made worse by the new accident).
The defence of LVI is often raised in conjunction with fraud – a very serious allegation to make. If an insurer alleges that the Claimant is making a fraudulent claim, they are basically arguing that the Claimant is lying either about his or her injuries or about the circumstances of the accident.
Fraud is much wider than a Claimant simply exaggerating or inventing an injury. Fraud can also include issues such as phantom passengers and so called “staged” accidents. In the case of staged accidents this could be an arranged collision between people in two different vehicles – in such a case both parties are involved in the fraud. However, a staged accident can be against an innocent driver. An example of such a case would be where a driver slams on his or her brakes for no apparent reason in an attempt to cause an accident (i.e. to cause the vehicle behind to rear end shunt his or her vehicle). This should be a stark warning to those drivers who tail gate the vehicle in front too closely. In the case of phantom passengers, this is where an accident has occurred and the number of Claimants exceeds the number of people in the vehicle (i.e. people who were not even involved in the accident are seeking to bring a claim for compensation).
There are ways and means of solicitors and insurers finding out if a claim is fraudulent or exaggerated. We believe in sensible and fair claiming for all innocent victims of negligence on the roads.