JN
Jabu N
1 reviews | Active since Nov 2010
04 Apr 2019, 22:31
3rd Party Claim refuted
On 12/12/2018 I was involved in an accident where a client of Budget Insurance bumped me from the right-hand driver's door up to rear fender as I was trying to make a U-Turn. I submitted a 3rd party claim and they refute it claiming I caused the accident. With indicators on and arm stretched out to show my intention, anybody with a reasonable following distance and eyes on the road could avoid the accident. They made me send the car for assessment and seeing the magnitude of the damage they refute the claim.
Helpful (0)
Replies (3)0
Replies (3)
Budget Insurance's replyOfficial
05 Apr 2019, 07:28We acknowledge receipt of your complaint.
One of our Customer Relation Specialists will be in contact with you to discuss your concerns.
Kind Regards,
The Budget Insurance Team.
One of our Customer Relation Specialists will be in contact with you to discuss your concerns.
Kind Regards,
The Budget Insurance Team.
Budget Insurance's reply05 Apr 2019, 07:28
Official
We acknowledge receipt of your complaint.
One of our Customer Relation Specialists will be in contact with you to discuss your concerns.
Kind Regards,
The Budget Insurance Team.
One of our Customer Relation Specialists will be in contact with you to discuss your concerns.
Kind Regards,
The Budget Insurance Team.
JN
Jabu N's updateReviewer Update
06 Apr 2019, 10:04Budget responded with a letter detailing the merits of the claim. Factually they agree with me that the cause of the accident was indeed their client but because they don't want to pay they twist facts thinking I collided with their client whereas it was their client that collided with me.
JN
Jabu N's update06 Apr 2019, 10:04
Reviewer Update
Budget responded with a letter detailing the merits of the claim. Factually they agree with me that the cause of the accident was indeed their client but because they don't want to pay they twist facts thinking I collided with their client whereas it was their client that collided with me.
JN
Jabu N's updateReviewer Update
06 Apr 2019, 10:18This is the response letter:
We refer to the above matter.
According to the information at our disposal, it would appear that our client was not the sole cause of the accident.
We wish to point out that a person in control of a vehicle must:
1. travel at an appropriate speed; - I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
2. keep a proper look out - I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
We refer to Smit v SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1986(2) SA 314(SE) wherein the court held that an
approaching driver was negligent for not observing the oncoming vehicle executing a right-hand turn /U-turn in front of him and subsequently not taking any evasive action. THIS REFERENCE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ACCIDENT, WE WERE TRAVELLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION
The fact that a driver may have right of way, does not absolve him from his duty to be vigilant. – I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
Once the other driver has begun to execute a right-hand turn / U-turn , then a definite duty would rest on the through street driver to watch carefully and to take all such steps as may be necessary to avoid a collision. I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
On the premises there is no evidence that you had taken such reasonable steps to avoid the accident. I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
Our client’s damages are to the right frontal of his/her vehicle which is indicative that he/she had
already begun their turn in the road when the collision occurred. I AGREE, I HAD ALREADY MADE A TURN WHEN THE COLLISSION OCCURED
In order to resolve this matter amicably and to avoid incurring unnecessary legal costs, we are
prepared to make an offer of R(NO AMOUNT STATED) towards your damages, which is tantamount to a (NO PERCENTAGE STATED)% : (NO PERCENTAGE STATED)%
apportionment.
The letter is not professional and not even signed.
JN
Jabu N's update06 Apr 2019, 10:18
Reviewer Update
This is the response letter:
We refer to the above matter.
According to the information at our disposal, it would appear that our client was not the sole cause of the accident.
We wish to point out that a person in control of a vehicle must:
1. travel at an appropriate speed; - I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
2. keep a proper look out - I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
We refer to Smit v SA Eagle Insurance Co Ltd 1986(2) SA 314(SE) wherein the court held that an
approaching driver was negligent for not observing the oncoming vehicle executing a right-hand turn /U-turn in front of him and subsequently not taking any evasive action. THIS REFERENCE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ACCIDENT, WE WERE TRAVELLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION
The fact that a driver may have right of way, does not absolve him from his duty to be vigilant. – I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
Once the other driver has begun to execute a right-hand turn / U-turn , then a definite duty would rest on the through street driver to watch carefully and to take all such steps as may be necessary to avoid a collision. I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
On the premises there is no evidence that you had taken such reasonable steps to avoid the accident. I AGREE THIS POINTS OUT TO THEIR CLIENT
Our client’s damages are to the right frontal of his/her vehicle which is indicative that he/she had
already begun their turn in the road when the collision occurred. I AGREE, I HAD ALREADY MADE A TURN WHEN THE COLLISSION OCCURED
In order to resolve this matter amicably and to avoid incurring unnecessary legal costs, we are
prepared to make an offer of R(NO AMOUNT STATED) towards your damages, which is tantamount to a (NO PERCENTAGE STATED)% : (NO PERCENTAGE STATED)%
apportionment.
The letter is not professional and not even signed.