A West End man has cried foul after his insurance failed to cover him for accident damages, even though he was cleared in court of wrongdoing.

However, according to his insurer, the case illustrates the value of getting the broadest package of coverage.

The crash in March left Jah-Rome Hill, a construction worker, with an injured left hand and a badly damaged motorcycle.

“I just feel like I have been the victim in all of this,” said Mr Hill, who disputed the circumstances of the collision with another motorist.

The two had an accident on the night of March 16, with the other driver stating he had slowed down to make a turn on Middle Road, Southampton, near Port Royal Golf Course, when his car was struck by Mr Hill’s motorcycle.

Charged with driving without due care, Mr Hill argued his case successfully in Magistrates’ Court before Khamisi Tokunbo and was acquitted.

Mr Hill claimed that he was not provided with CCTV footage that could have proven his case, insisting also that marks on the road backed up his account.

“Colonial Insurance said they could not prove who was wrong, so I can’t get compensated for my losses,” he said.

“It was a brand-new bike in the second year of its licence. I just got back my money from closing my insurance.

“The other driver was able to claim off his insurance. Why can’t I claim off his too? Somebody has to be right or wrong.”

A spokeswoman for Colonial said the case illustrated the need for comprehensive motor insurance, regardless of driving record, saying the assumption that a careful driver would get to claim off the other party’s insurance was not a reliable one.

“Accidents are not always straightforward when it comes to determining who is at fault,” she said.

Instances arise when the insurer gets “insufficient evidence to accurately confirm who is liable”.

“In these cases, the norm is for each person to claim on their own insurance.”

Police were called to the scene and “for reasons unknown to us, they determined there was cause to charge one of the drivers for driving without due care and attention”.

She added: “It’s important to understand that a dismissal of charges is not necessarily confirmation that the other driver involved was responsible for the collision.

“It just means the judge felt there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused was driving below the required standards. In this case the other party in the accident was not on trial — the case was not about finding who was at fault for the accident.

“This is exactly the sort of incident where we are left with insufficient evidence to determine who is at fault, when the parties are encouraged to each claim on their own insurance.

“However, if you do not have comprehensive motor insurance, if you have only third party cover, you would have nothing to claim against.”

Comprehensive motor insurance includes mandatory third party coverage as well as insurance for damage to the insured’s own vehicle, she said — regardless of fault.