First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Help a rookie out, car insurance claim
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/30/15 , edited 1/30/15


The orange car was going 35 in a 30 on a main road and hit the green car who failed to give right of way. What percent of fault goes to each driver?

Note:The orange car has major damage to the right passenger side of his vehicle and the green one has damage to the driver side. The orange car is a subaru forester while the green 1 is a maintenance van(privately owned) with no windows on the side except for the front seats.


EDIT:I know which one should be at fault,I'm just wondering how the greedy insurance companies will try to weasel there way out of this. I am the orange one.
20354 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 1/30/15
i would say 80-90% of the fault would be the green car since it's a stop sign and it's suppose to make a full stop at the stop sign and check both ways before proceeding to prevent something like this from happening.
Posted 1/30/15
Going 35 when the limit is 30? I doubt such a small amount over the limit will even be considered by the insurance company. 100% fault on the green car.

The amount and placement of the damage and types of vehicles make no difference.
22023 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / California
Offline
Posted 1/30/15
Green car. Like above 80% or more, if not, 100%. It's actually really common to go at least 3-5 miles above the speed limit, maybe even more depending on the environment around you. I'm going to assume this actually happened, and one of the cars is yours.

Also failing to give the right away is a violation and you get a fat ticket.
Posted 1/30/15
Depending on where state you live in speeding can forfeit right of way . Meaning the orange car could be found at fault.
18902 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/30/15 , edited 1/30/15
Could you draw in the point of initial impact, that has a lot to do with it being avoidable or not? Your best choice is unofficially talking to a Highway Patrol or other law enforcement that deal with traffic accident investigation in your local area. You should have at least two, other then your insurance adjustor, estimates for cost of repair or total value (if they want to write it off). Expect your premium to increase unless you have a deal in place.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15

Jamming777 wrote:

Could you draw in the point of initial impact, that has a lot to do with it being avoidable or not? Your best choice is unofficially talking to a Highway Patrol or other law enforcement that deal with traffic accident investigation in your local area. You should have at least two, other then your insurance adjustor, estimates for cost of repair or total value (if they want to write it off). Expect your premium to increase unless you have a deal in place.




It was something like this, I have no collision insurance, so if I get a bad claim, I'm screwed.
57656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Buried under a pi...
Offline
Posted 1/31/15
Part of it will depend on the insurance company(ies) involved. Here's a little true story to illustrate what I mean:

A co-worker was riding her bike home from work and was hit by a car. (SHE'S FINE, SO DON'T WORRY!) Even though the co-worker was NOT AT FAULT because the car came from BEHIND HER SO SHE NEVER SAW THE CAR COMING and the police report found the car driver COMPLETELY AT FAULT, for some reason, the insurance company found the CAR DRIVER NOT AT FAULT! (It gets better--both parties have the SAME INSURANCE COMPANY). Long story short--the car driver's insurance rep is being a complete jerk and the co-worker's rep is completely useless, so the co-worker has to go to small claims court to try to get the insurance company to pay the cost of repairing her bike and stuff. (We work in a law office so the co-worker is able to get help from her boss throughout this whole ordeal that NEVER should have happened). So, hopefully you don't have lousy insurance. Worst case, go to small claims court if you have to, depending on your state, of course. My co-worker is going to change insurance companies thanks to this incident. Surprising, I know.
6250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15
I'm no expert on this but from experience and what I've heard... If you can prove beyond doubt that the orange car was speeding then 100% of blame is attributable to them, they were breaking the law. Same goes if the insurance companies decide to inspect the vehicles, any defects that make the car no longer roadworthy (e.g Annual Govt' inspection), bald tyres, brakes below legal limit etc... then that person gets 100% of the blame as this means the car should not be on the road in the first place.

All being within the law/guidelines, I would have said the van driver was at fault, he obliviously didn't look correctly or tried to pull out in too small a gap. I'm not 100% sure how the speed of the orange car will be dealt with as the van driver shouldn't have pulled out if it was unsafe, but then he could turn around and say 'I thought he was doing 30', I have a feeling though anybody acting illegally gets 100% of blame (In the UK anyway).

Also if it can be proved that the orange car took no (safe) evasive action - pretty sure all that means is braking appropriately (You can't exactly swerve to avoid!) then hey will be at fault. But then this is insurance companies so they'll come up with some daft excuse not to pay. I had to go through this once, luckily the driver I hit couldn't be bothered and drove off so it was fairly straight forward if a bit strange.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15

flyinggibbon wrote:

I'm no expert on this but from experience and what I've heard... If you can prove beyond doubt that the orange car was speeding then 100% of blame is attributable to them, they were breaking the law. Same goes if the insurance companies decide to inspect the vehicles, any defects that make the car no longer roadworthy (e.g Annual Govt' inspection), bald tyres, brakes below legal limit etc... then that person gets 100% of the blame as this means the car should not be on the road in the first place.

All being within the law/guidelines, I would have said the van driver was at fault, he obliviously didn't look correctly or tried to pull out in too small a gap. I'm not 100% sure how the speed of the orange car will be dealt with as the van driver shouldn't have pulled out if it was unsafe, but then he could turn around and say 'I thought he was doing 30', I have a feeling though anybody acting illegally gets 100% of blame (In the UK anyway).

Also if it can be proved that the orange car took no (safe) evasive action - pretty sure all that means is braking appropriately (You can't exactly swerve to avoid!) then hey will be at fault. But then this is insurance companies so they'll come up with some daft excuse not to pay. I had to go through this once, luckily the driver I hit couldn't be bothered and drove off so it was fairly straight forward if a bit strange.



I am the orange one
33030 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15
anyway 100% green car fault; failed to yield right of way.

*Edit: were police involved? If so did they ticket anyone?
6250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/31/15

kamahl01 wrote:


flyinggibbon wrote:

I'm no expert on this but from experience and what I've heard... If you can prove beyond doubt that the orange car was speeding then 100% of blame is attributable to them, they were breaking the law. Same goes if the insurance companies decide to inspect the vehicles, any defects that make the car no longer roadworthy (e.g Annual Govt' inspection), bald tyres, brakes below legal limit etc... then that person gets 100% of the blame as this means the car should not be on the road in the first place.

All being within the law/guidelines, I would have said the van driver was at fault, he obliviously didn't look correctly or tried to pull out in too small a gap. I'm not 100% sure how the speed of the orange car will be dealt with as the van driver shouldn't have pulled out if it was unsafe, but then he could turn around and say 'I thought he was doing 30', I have a feeling though anybody acting illegally gets 100% of blame (In the UK anyway).

Also if it can be proved that the orange car took no (safe) evasive action - pretty sure all that means is braking appropriately (You can't exactly swerve to avoid!) then hey will be at fault. But then this is insurance companies so they'll come up with some daft excuse not to pay. I had to go through this once, luckily the driver I hit couldn't be bothered and drove off so it was fairly straight forward if a bit strange.



I am the orange one


To be honest, they're not going to know your speed and you can't take someone's word for it, it's no use the van driver saying 'he was doing more than 30', there's no proof, so don't even mention that to anyone unless asked. To me it seems it is the van drivers fault, he pulled out without looking correctly or waiting for a long enough gap. If someone pulls out too close, there's nothing you can do. You can't swerve to avoid, it's too dangerous, there's not enough time to check the other lane is clear, who is behind you, signal etc...

Not sure if you have contacted your insurance company yet, but I was surprised when I did. I was expecting a barrage of questions about every detail but all they wanted was a quick explanation, was anyone hurt and as my car was pretty old they gave me the choice of a) a fixed sum to write off the car or b) someone to inspect the car to see if it can be repaired. Within 20 mins and a couple of e-mails it was all sorted and I received the money within a week by which time my old car was picked up to go to the scrapyard. As the other vehicle is involved I guess it may take a little longer but at the end of the day it'll get sorted and no one was seriously injured, they're just cars, they're not worth worrying over. Depending on what happens you may end up paying more for your insurance, though, my accident had no impact on my insurance so it may not be as bad as you think!
9115 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15

flyinggibbon wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:


flyinggibbon wrote:

I'm no expert on this but from experience and what I've heard... If you can prove beyond doubt that the orange car was speeding then 100% of blame is attributable to them, they were breaking the law. Same goes if the insurance companies decide to inspect the vehicles, any defects that make the car no longer roadworthy (e.g Annual Govt' inspection), bald tyres, brakes below legal limit etc... then that person gets 100% of the blame as this means the car should not be on the road in the first place.

All being within the law/guidelines, I would have said the van driver was at fault, he obliviously didn't look correctly or tried to pull out in too small a gap. I'm not 100% sure how the speed of the orange car will be dealt with as the van driver shouldn't have pulled out if it was unsafe, but then he could turn around and say 'I thought he was doing 30', I have a feeling though anybody acting illegally gets 100% of blame (In the UK anyway).

Also if it can be proved that the orange car took no (safe) evasive action - pretty sure all that means is braking appropriately (You can't exactly swerve to avoid!) then hey will be at fault. But then this is insurance companies so they'll come up with some daft excuse not to pay. I had to go through this once, luckily the driver I hit couldn't be bothered and drove off so it was fairly straight forward if a bit strange.



I am the orange one


To be honest, they're not going to know your speed and you can't take someone's word for it, it's no use the van driver saying 'he was doing more than 30', there's no proof, so don't even mention that to anyone unless asked. To me it seems it is the van drivers fault, he pulled out without looking correctly or waiting for a long enough gap. If someone pulls out too close, there's nothing you can do. You can't swerve to avoid, it's too dangerous, there's not enough time to check the other lane is clear, who is behind you, signal etc...

Not sure if you have contacted your insurance company yet, but I was surprised when I did. I was expecting a barrage of questions about every detail but all they wanted was a quick explanation, was anyone hurt and as my car was pretty old they gave me the choice of a) a fixed sum to write off the car or b) someone to inspect the car to see if it can be repaired. Within 20 mins and a couple of e-mails it was all sorted and I received the money within a week by which time my old car was picked up to go to the scrapyard. As the other vehicle is involved I guess it may take a little longer but at the end of the day it'll get sorted and no one was seriously injured, they're just cars, they're not worth worrying over. Depending on what happens you may end up paying more for your insurance, though, my accident had no impact on my insurance so it may not be as bad as you think!


Like the previous.. there isnt much too it..

I know in some other countries that stuff like % of fault plays a factor.. but my experiences in the US its usually simply your fault or not.. Even more so.. if you have full coverage it doesn't really matter that much at all unless the total repair cost is over your set limit..

Pay the deductible and everything should be taken care of.. Unless like i said you're not fully covered.. uninsured.. underinsured.. or someone died...

With full coverage the repairs are a non issue... only thing to be concerned about is the eventual increase in cost of insurance..
zirito 
21708 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15
You hit a car.

The only "weasling" is gonna have to be on YOUR part because you're looking really bad here.

You have to get yourself out of this with unproven claims. There can be proof, but you haven't told us. And tbh, the only solid proof I can think of is a recording that shows whether or not you had a chance to stop.

1. Can you prove he was going too fast? (if he stopped at the sign, it's hard to believe it's his fault)
2. Can you prove you stopped as soon as possible? (burnt tire marks on the road would help, but it still doesn't prove how fast you reacted)

You really hit the car in the middle? Sorry, but if you exercise very safe driving techniques, this should not have happened, at least not THAT far in. I could imagine the two fronts colliding at the corner, but you sort of let the car go ahead of you, THEN you hit it.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15

zirito wrote:

You hit a car.

The only "weasling" is gonna have to be on YOUR part because you're looking really bad here.

You have to get yourself out of this with unproven claims. There can be proof, but you haven't told us. And tbh, the only solid proof I can think of is a recording that shows whether or not you had a chance to stop.

1. Can you prove he was going too fast? (if he stopped at the sign, it's hard to believe it's his fault)
2. Can you prove you stopped as soon as possible? (burnt tire marks on the road would help, but it still doesn't prove how fast you reacted)

You really hit the car in the middle? Sorry, but if you exercise very safe driving techniques, this should not have happened, at least not THAT far in. I could imagine the two fronts colliding at the corner, but you sort of let the car go ahead of you, THEN you hit it.


I want peoples opinion and this is the reason I asked peoples opinion,but....

0.Did I make any unproven claims?Everything I listed was a fact. I was going straight on a main road with no stop sign sign and he was making a right turn with one. It can be put into question that I should have been able to break faster, but nothing else. If I wanted to make a false claim, I would have said he may have not stopped at the sign, which is a possibility.I know thats pointless to argue, so I haven't. Also, the guy even admitted to me that he was "partly to blame,but if I was going 30,I could have avoided it"(something he can't prove). His admission is also useless to my case, because its likely he didn't sing that tune to the cops.I also know, "he said she said" is pointless.

1.When did I say I can prove he was going too fast?Didn't I state that I was going 35 in a 30,something that he needs to prove?

2.If I could prove that I stopped fast enough would we be having this discussion?Wouldn't my car not be a wreck?

3.That type of car turns wide and has at least a 30% reduction in vision compared to most cars.

By right of way laws, i'm in the right. I posted this because I know that insurance companies have it in their interest to give as little money as possible. I also know that some of the factors mentioned could prevent me from getting 100% compensation.

PLEASE TELL ME THE PART WHERE I MADE ANY UNPROVEN OR FALSE CLAIMS?
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.