Insurance Claim - 'Without prejudice'

[Shreeve]

I had my first proper crash in September. Filtering, guy turned right, cut me up, crash, hit road, many hurts. 100% his fault. Bike is a Cat D.

Following much correspondence, conversations and an independent witness supporting my claim, the 3rd party supplier have agreed to give me my bike back plus a cheque for £2,870. This is based on the bike being valued at £3,500 and deducting £630 for the post-crash bike value.

This is being offered 'without prejudice' which I understand to mean liability has not been accepted and they will continue to investigate?

Curious as to how common this type of offer is? Is it risky to accept the money when there is a possibility they will want it back at a later date if they (through some strange loophole possibly) find it is 50/50?

A bit annoyed the guy is denying liability but that's par for the course...
____________________
Current: Suzuki GSX650F (2010), Suzuki GSXR1000 K7, Suzuki GS250T (1980) currently restoring: Clicky.
Previous: Honda CBF 125 (2011), Suzuki GSXR750 K4

[TheArchitect]

I had the same about a year ago. Riding along, nobsack turned into me from opposite lane. Difference in my case was that said nobsack then drove off without stopping. No witnesses and only proof was hazy image of number plate on my helmet cam.

TP paid "without prejudice" as in my case they couldn't be 100% sure it was their named insured driving. So for me it wasn't a case of they might claim the money back from me, rather they needed to find out who was actually driving and pursue them for the cost paid to me.

EDIT: Realise this doesn't answer your question but thought it'd help to know there are other reasons for "without prejudice" payments.
____________________
GSXR 600 K6 - Stolen
GSXR 600 K6 - Stolen
MT09 - Almost stolen

[hellkat]

From what I understand of it, having just been to a Without Prejudice meeting last week, it actually only means "whatever we say in this meeting/whatever I write in this letter" is off the record and can't be used for later litigation by either side.

But I could be wrong, because I am not a lawyer. That's what I understood the lawyer to be telling me when she explained it to me, anyway.
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[chris-red]

I had a without prejudice payment years back and never heard anything else after it.

Below is opinion and has no basis in fact.
I've had a few claims, I believe the idea of a without prejudice claim is where they believe they are in the wrong and offer the payment to stop their costs spiralling from legal/hire bike fees etc. Once you have the payment their costs stop rising so they can do all due diligence on the case and sign it offer properly in their own time.
____________________
Well, you know what they say. If you want to save the world, you have to push a few old ladies down the stairs.
Skudd:- Perhaps she just thinks you are a window licker and is being nice just in case she becomes another Jill Dando.
WANTED:- Fujinon (Fuji) M42 (Screw on) lenses, let me know if you have anything.

[The Disapproving Brit]

[Shreeve]

Thanks for the replies chaps.

I do currently have a hire bike at £104 per day (2013 Honda NC750X) which may explain it.
____________________
Current: Suzuki GSX650F (2010), Suzuki GSXR1000 K7, Suzuki GS250T (1980) currently restoring: Clicky.
Previous: Honda CBF 125 (2011), Suzuki GSXR750 K4

[Rogerborg]

[iooi]

[SuperMike]

Currently going through this myself. Got knocked off start of July. Had a cheque through the post a couple of months later that was without prejudice. Have heard nothing since. I too had a hire bike, so I assume that it was basically so they could stop paying for that and then sort things out in their own time. I have no idea if they will come after me for some sort of 50 / 50 blame - heard nothing as of yet. Very similar to your crash - filtering up the middle as you do with very slow moving traffic in both directions. Matey decides to pull a u-turn without looking in his mirrors resulting in me on his bonnet and then the floor. Drives off of course, who cares about the human being on the floor. Anyway, they can whistle for their 50 / 50 as far as I am concerned.

So, not really much to tell you other than the above. Seems that you will probably get to keep all the money though by the sounds of things.

[Pete.]

I got a £800-odd without prejudice payment out of a roadworks contractor after one of their guys deliberately caused me to crash. It's a way they can say 'ok, we unofficially hold our hands up now take this and go away' without it going on record.

I say don't read more into it than it is - just a payment without admitting fault. You get what you want , they get to keep their image clean. If they didn't think it was viable they would tell you to get and do one.
____________________
a.k.a 'Geri'

132.9mph off and walked away. Gear is good, gear is good, gear is very very good

[ScaredyCat]

[wots]

Idiot young lad in a Clio, turned out from a minor road into a major road and struck the front right of my car. I could see he was going to do something daft, so I'd slowed to stop even though I had clear right of way. There was traffic in the direction he was going but still managed to zip down the road. However, I was able to read his number plate in the rear view mirror, read it the right way and retain as he was accelerating away (much harder than it sounds).

I claimed as my car was disabled at the scene, literally a linkage or something popped off and the wheel wouldn't steer. Other than that, minimal damage, but it had a xenon headlight and there was a small scratch so needed replacement and other minor stuff. Car was written off, managed to get £2,200 for a car worth £1500 and a hire car.

Anyway, the insured never responded to the letters from the insurer, after months of to-ing & fro-ing. They settled 'without prejudice', as the insured's home address was the minor road he'd just exited and I'd filed police reports. So I think it was a case of, mmm yeah we think it was him too, but we won't admit to that and think we'd lose a case anyway. Here's your cash, goodbye.
____________________
Currently: Yamaha DT 125 LC2,Repsol Fireblade, and Bumblebee MSX 125

[Wonko The Sane]

[wots]

[DJP]

[Rogerborg]

If you're interested, the point is that courts want folks to work things out themselves rather than in the courtroom. Court should be a last resort.

But if you couldn't negotiate without being mugged later using your offer as an admission of liability, or as a minimum / maximum figure, then you'd have little incentive to make an offer. Good faith negotiations are implicitly without prejudice, but lawyers like their incantations.

It's not a trick and it can't be clawed back later (barring some sort of fraud on your part, but they'd have to bring a case against you). It's just what it says, without prejudice to any future court wrangle if you choose not to accept it.

If you're happy with the offer, take it.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike

[Pete.]

[owl10]

I make and recieve without prejudice offers all the time in my day job (managing contracts / claims from Suppliers)

It's nothing to do with coming back after the money.

As hellcat and others have mentioned, its a way of having a discussion about resolution without risk to your position should you not be able to agree.

Essentially, no court has ruled the insured other party is liable, so its a way of the insurance company finding out if you'd settle; if you won't settle and it went to court the fact they'd made an offer wouldnt be able to be inferred as an admission of liability or indication of the value of your claim.

Its probably worth establishing if they are making the offer and admitting liability for the purpose of renewals in future.
____________________
DanceLikeAMonkey says: "An infinte amount of web pages available
Yet I still end up reading crap like that"