One of my favourite topics - yer insurance companies. Remember that insurance has nothing really to do with right and wrong. When an incident occurs, their only interest is minimising their losses. Somewhere at the insurance company they'll be a spreadsheet that balances the total cost of different courses of action. So for example, the cost of turning up to the small claims court might be more than £70, so try and spend five minutes trying to scare the claimant (cost negligible) and then pay up. For my claim (£3000 in total) I was accused of reckless cycling (offer = nil) , then lack of observation (offer = £1000, 50/50 responsibility) and then not wearing a helmet and hi-viz (contributory negligence, offer = £2000). At each point, you could almost hear them tap in the numbers to calculate what to do next. If they thought it would help save money, I'm sure they'd finger me for 9/11 and the Rape of Nanking.
I effectively did the same thing as Twickers (through a solicitor as the numbers were over the small claims limit) and invited them to court so the magistrate could view the footage. Costs of proper court vs chance of winning vs £3000, the spreadsheet turns red and they pay up.
Although right and wrong are secondary in all this, evidence is key. Strong evidence (in my case having a video) tips the probability of winning a case towards you, which in turn sets the ceiling where the insurance will decide to fight or pay. Evidence the other way, like the colluding drivers in this case, makes the insurance a little more bullish. It doesn't matter that this evidence is BS - it's mud to sling.