Serve both the driver and the company.
I take it you haven't employed the services of a lawyer yet...
Serve both the driver and the company.
I take it you haven't employed the services of a lawyer yet...
Participation is voluntary.
Alcocks Electrical Services | Alcocks Pest Control & Entomological Services | Alcocks Hygiene Services
Any agreement between the Lady &/or company & its drivers is no concern of yours. That is their private arrangement. You go for the owner, be it the lady/company,served as well to the driver as Dave suggests. I take it that you have managed to get the name of the registered owner of the vehicle via the licensing offices.
Always take lots of pictures when you have an accident. There is no repudiating what the accident entailed.
Almost every cellphone has a camera, use it.
Victor - Knowledge is a blessing or a curse, your current circumstances make you decide!
Solar pumping, Solar Geyser & Solar Security lighting solutions - www.microsolve.co.za
i have a lawyer
but was hoping to settle out of court- if possible
now, i see that wont be possible with this lady
hopefully she will end up paying much more through the court than what i would have been prepared to accept out of court.
A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps.
The way i see it, if she won't be reasonable and settle "out of court", then go to court and go for the jugular...
Today Defines Tomorrow
Errare Humanum Est Remitto Divinus
msmoorad (11-Jun-13)
This practise has a long history. Prior to 1976 (if my ailing memory serves me), the courts were chocked with insurance companies suing insurance companies. Invariably courts would award 60/40. Obvious-blame issues naturally did not go to court. Insurance companies soon worked out that they were merely increasing the costs with all of the legal fees and round about that time they signed a knock-for-knock agreement.
The essence of the agreement was that each company would pay their clients' own damages and only "ask" each other for their clients' excess if:
- the client inquired
- and there was patent and clear major fault by the other party
Naturally this brought about conflict when both parties were with the same insurer or when one party had no cover. In the case of the latter, the insurer will attempt to recover the full damages from the other party, because being uninsured, he was never party to the knock-for-knock agreement. If the uninsured digs his heels in they will frequently settle for the excess, because that is most likely all that the courts will award.
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.