Recovery of access from third party

Worst Car Insurance Company when dealing with their legal department. Someone collided into my car driven by my nephew. Even when the other party admits that they were wrong, OUTsurance states that if both parties were reversing, they are both liable. They call it a collision, whereas the other party collided into my vehicle.

Photographic evidence, and Google map view was used to see and support to validate the legitimacy of the statement. Below is the email communication conducted:

Hi,

Please, the arrow directions on the picture you attached, clearly shows that the two vehicles collided into each other, which was not the case and what was not said on the telephonic call. The main intentions of using the picture obtained from Google maps, was to give a view of how the incident occurred.

Firstly, the white vehicle with headlights on facing the road used on the picture, I am assuming that it used as an example because the vehicle that collide into my car, according to the statement given by my nephew, the vehicle was facing the dealership entrance/exit with its front, and its back was facing the road.

Secondly, as per my nephew’s statement, he did intend to enter Auto Platinum dealership in Gezina. Upon missing the entrance, he parked on the pavement with the intention to reverse and go into the dealership. He checked his rear-view mirror and, seeing no obstruction, began reversing. This is true.

This statement below is untrue: Simultaneously, the other party reversed out of the dealership, resulting in a collision. Please see below picture of the dealership.

There was no collision, but the other party collided into my car that was reversing driven by my nephew. See my picture below with red drawings using the white vehicle with headlights on facing the road:

This statement highlighted in yellow below is also not true when it mentions visibility obstruction of my nephew. My nephew was not in the dealership driveway, but outside, and by dealership sideway: It is important to note that both sides of the dealership driveway have vehicles parked, which obstructed visibility for both drivers.

When it comes to case law of reversing, the law is clear but only one party failed to exercise proper care because my nephew app**** all the proper care you have mentioned on your below mail : “He checked his rear-view mirror and, seeing no obstruction, began reversing”. How do you collide with someone after you have app**** all the necessary care before you reverse, and whilst reversing?

This matter, is one of many matters hard working South African Citizens have to face and deal with when it comes to financial instructions who only do what works for them, and it becomes a challenge when they have to perform tasks in the best interest of their customers.

From: Martha Chiloane <***> Sent: Friday, 31 October 2025 11:44 To: Mosime, N. (Neo) <***> Cc: Charlotte Mashego <***> Subject: Claim No ***

You don't often get email from ***. Learn why this is important

⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER - Please be careful when opening links and attachments. ⚠️ Please report any suspicious mail to ***. Nedbank Information Security Good day Mr Mosime Thank you for your patience while we reviewed the details of your recovery claim. Following a thorough assessment of the merits provided, we regret to inform you that we are unable to proceed with recovery in this matter. According to your account, your nephew was driving at the time of the incident and intended to enter Auto Platinum dealership in Gezina. Upon missing the entrance, he parked on the pavement with the intention to reverse and go into the dealership. He checked his rear-view mirror and, seeing no obstruction, began reversing. Simultaneously, the other party reversed out of the dealership, resulting in a collision. Please see below picture of the dealership. Please see a case law on reversing parties . Application to Mutual Reversing Scenario If both vehicles reversed simultaneously and collided: • Each driver may be partially liable if neither exercised proper care. • The Apportionment of Damages Act 34 of 1956 allows courts to divide liability based on each party’s degree of fault. “Both parties engaged in reversing maneuvers without adequately ensuring the path was clear. The collision occurred due to a mutual failure to exercise the required standard of care. Therefore, liability should be apportioned in terms of the Apportionment of Damages Act, considering each party’s contribution to the accident.” It is important to note that both sides of the dealership driveway have vehicles parked, which obstructed visibility for both drivers. Given these circumstances, liability is shared between both parties. As a result, OUTsurance will not be pursuing recovery and will not be involved further in this matter. You are, however, welcome to pursue the matter independently through the Small Claims Court should you wish to do so. We would also like to confirm that your main claim has been settled in full. The outstanding portion relates to your excess, which remains your responsibility irrespective of fault. This is outlined in your facility wording on page 6, which we have attached for your convenience. We trust this clarifies the position. Kind regards, Martha Chiloane Martha Chiloane Legal Recoveries Team Manager Tel: *** Email: ***

SA's Best Insurer where you always get something OUT

CLICK HERE for a quote or visit www.outsurance.co.za. OUTsurance is a licensed insurer and FSP. Ts and Cs apply. To read OUTsurance's disclaimer go to www.outsurance.co.za/disclaimer