A family were involved in a collision in the carpark of a local supermarket when the driver of another vehicle ignored a give way sign and pulled in front of them. The other driver accepted responsibility at the scene, but his insurers took a different stance and disputed the facts of the collision not only as put forward by our clients but by their own client too.

The insurance company went to great lengths to dispute the case, including obtaining engineering evidence to suggest our clients’ vehicle had been travelling faster than had been suggested – although the engineering evidence was based solely on photographs of the damaged vehicles rather than a physical examination of either.

The insurance company even suggested that our clients were being fundamentally dishonest and that they had colluded about the facts of the accident with their insured. The insurance company produced no evidence to support an allegation the consequences of which were significant for our clients – if found proved it effectively amounted to fraud and could have resulted in fines, imprisonment and losing their jobs.

"There was nothing unusual about the collision, yet the insurance company went to extraordinary lengths to question the clients' integrity and honesty. Whilst we were always confident that the Judge would dismiss the baseless allegations, they were deeply unsettling for our clients and a quite breathtaking misuse of the rules regarding fundamental dishonesty”.

Stephen Ireland, Senior Executive

The case went to trial and the Judge hearing the case found the insurance company’s allegations “manifestly nonsense”, and, believing them entirely and absolving them of any suggested wrongdoing, proceeded to award full compensation to our clients.

Stephen Ireland from our Manchester Office, who ran the case, said: “Our clients were injured through no fault of their own. There was nothing unusual about the circumstances of the collision or their evidence, yet the insurance company went to extraordinary lengths to question their integrity and honesty, it was a clear attempt to throw mud in the hope that a Judge would find that some stuck. Whilst we were always confident that the Judge would dismiss the baseless allegations they were deeply unsettling for our clients and a quite breathtaking misuse of the rules regarding fundamental dishonesty”.