Lame or game on

[Dave A]

A month ago one of the company vehicles was involved in an accident.

The driver had stopped behind other vehicles at a traffic light (was stationery at time of accident). Another vehicle ploughed into the back of our vehicle with enough force to push our vehicle into the vehicle in front.

The vehicle (1) that shunted our vehicle from behind was apparently a write-off.
Our vehicle (2) suffered significant damage to both the back and front ends (repairable).
The vehicle (3) in front of us had a fair bit of damage to the back (repairable).

No significant injuries to anyone, although I did lose 6 workdays in staff absenteeism as a result, vehicle off the road for repairs for three weeks, the insurance excess and about 8 work hours in paperwork processing total.

Lame or game on question 1:

Do I sue the driver of vehicle 1 for our losses as a result of the accident?

[Mark Atkinson]

I have my doubts whether you would be successful with such a claim.

1. Is he worth suing? If he isn't well off, don't bother.

2. Is there an element of illegality? (I suppose you could argue negligence)

3. If you are unsuccessful in your claim, what sort of legal fees are you looking at adding to your list of "losses"?

[daveob]

In addition to Mark's reply :

Someone once said to me :

don't spend 4 hours changing the cambelt on your car, just to save R200, if in the same 4 hours you could have made R1000 selling widgets.

2c

[tec0]

If the insurance will cover the damages to your vehicle and you don’t pay in anything like that I would leave it alone for now. However if you face heavy costs and the owner of vehicle 1 is able to cover those cost I would recommend that you take action and get your losses covered.

[AndyD]

Do I sue the driver of vehicle 1 for our losses as a result of the accident?

I would add the expenses of admin and absenteeism to the insurance claim if they are solely the direct result of the accident.......is he insured though?

[SilverNodashi]

From own personal experience I can tell you that you're probably not going to get far even if you sue him. Unless he's actually a nice guy and pays-up. But those types of people are like diamonds these days. hard to find one

[KimH]

If your claim is under R7000 (which I doubt) there is the option of Small Claims Court - no legal fees and generally they rule in your favour if you can prove you suffered a loss as a result of the incident.

With regards to going the legal route, I agree with Mark, Rudi and Daveob.

[Perform Computers]

Yes but how many hours will be wasted sitting in court?

[Just Gone]

If you are insured I would say no to suing car 1. I think that is why we have insurance and this could happen to anyone and it could be more time consuming than it is worth.

[rfnel]

Isn't this what liability cover is for? As far as I know, it's automatically included with my insurance policy - other insurance companies probably do it as well.

Though I'm still not sure if it will be worth the effort, legal fees, etc.

[Modise]

I can just see you wasting more valuable time, attending court cases, postponements, etc. Was car 1 driven by a celebrity? If yes, expect the case to be resolved after a year or so.

[SilverNodashi]

Was car 1 driven by a celebrity? If yes, expect the case to be resolved after a year or so.

Or 10+ years if it's government / military .......

[Dave A]

Looking at the comments so far -

When it comes to the value of claim being worthwhile, I suggest if you are intending to sue you would sue for the full value of damages - you are not obliged to claim from your insurer.

Time in court? That's what lawyers are for. It would probably not take much more than a letter of demand and issuing of summons in this instance.

Is driver 1 insured? Yes.

Can driver 1 afford the claim? They're insured - the insurance company would be paying.

That's why we take out insurance, to cover these sorts of things... True, but accident claims affect what you're going to pay for that cover. I also suggest that ultimately you're insuring for your mistakes and covering for those times when you get hit by the wrong person.

Legally and financially making claim against driver 1 is perfectly tenable (although there is a cashflow implication). Technically my insurer will be making a claim against driver 1 anyway. Whether they will or not remains to be seen - I have my doubts based on their past history in pretty clear-cut similar cases.

All said I think I'm leaving it up to the insurers though. There are some interesting relationship complications in this particular case (which I was going to torture you with) - but after some consideration, keeping it all via third party probably is the way to go. At least that way if there's any flashback, I can honestly say it is all out of my hands.

Thanks for everyone's feedback - it really did help me make peace with my decision.