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 1/31/15

DeadStroke wrote:

anyway 100% green car fault; failed to yield right of way.

*Edit: were police involved? If so did they ticket anyone?


I wasn't ticketed and won't know if he was yet until I see the police report on monday.
zirito 
21710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15

kamahl01 wrote:


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?


If you want people's opinions and this is the reason you asked...

0. Did I say you made any unproven claims? Everything I listed was a fact. You were going straight on a main road with an appropriate speed limit for avoiding collision with adjacent traffic. You definitely should have been able to break faster at 30-35 mph speed limit with visible incoming traffic. If you wanted to make a false claim, you could have said literally anything. It's not pointless to argue his stopping at the sign if he truly didn't stop at the sign. He didn't fully admit anything. This is useless to your case.

1. When did I say you can prove he was going to fast? He doesn't need to prove anything. You hit him.

2. Why would you even have to "prove" you stopped fast enough?

3. This is irrelevant. He doesn't have to see you once he's already claimed his spot in front of you. He has to see you BEFORE he's turning and make sure he has enough time to get ahead of you.

By right of way laws, the car in front of you has the right of way. You're not allowed to hit the car in front of you. Plain and simple. Insurance companies have it in their interest to give you NO money if possible. Some of the factors mentioned could prevent you from getting any compensation.

PLEASE TELL ME THE PART WHERE I SAID YOU MADE ANY UNPROVEN OR FALSE CLAIMS?


Edit: I'm responding to your post with simple logic because nothing you said made any sense or relevance to my post. It's like you were responding to a completely different person, or simply very poorly read what I said without any proper understanding of what should be easy to comprehend. You should carefully reread my first post on all points before you further embarrass yourself. Perhaps re-examine the meaning behind phrases like "have to" or "as soon as possible" and certainly don't be confused by slang such as "gonna". I made no accusations in my first post and simply stated the obvious: you've only demonstrated enough proof to make yourself look bad and nothing to help your case against him. I'm referring to that picture which can be proven by examining and comparing the damage on the vehicles.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15

zirito wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:


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?


If you want people's opinions and this is the reason you asked...

0. Did I say you made any unproven claims? Everything I listed was a fact. You were going straight on a main road with an appropriate speed limit for avoiding collision with adjacent traffic. You definitely should have been able to break faster at 30-35 mph speed limit with visible incoming traffic. If you wanted to make a false claim, you could have said literally anything. It's not pointless to argue his stopping at the sign if he truly didn't stop at the sign. He didn't fully admit anything. This is useless to your case.

1. When did I say you can prove he was going to fast? He doesn't need to prove anything. You hit him.

2. Why would you even have to "prove" you stopped fast enough?

3. This is irrelevant. He doesn't have to see you once he's already claimed his spot in front of you. He has to see you BEFORE he's turning and make sure he has enough time to get ahead of you.

By right of way laws, the car in front of you has the right of way. You're not allowed to hit the car in front of you. Plain and simple. Insurance companies have it in their interest to give you NO money if possible. Some of the factors mentioned could prevent you from getting any compensation.

PLEASE TELL ME THE PART WHERE I SAID YOU MADE ANY UNPROVEN OR FALSE CLAIMS?


Edit: I'm responding to your post with simple logic because nothing you said made any sense or relevance to my post. It's like you were responding to a completely different person, or simply very poorly read what I said without any proper understanding of what should be easy to comprehend. You should carefully reread my first post on all points before you further embarrass yourself.






0.you said"You have to get yourself out of this with unproven claims"". What did I state that their isn't proof of?

1.I neve said he was speeding or used that in my defense at all.I simply stated that a person on a main road with no stop sign has right of way over a person coming from a side street with one.

2.you said."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)" If thats not you saying that I have to prove I stopped as soon as possible,I don't know what is.

3.you sai"This is irrelevant. He doesn't have to see you once he's already claimed his spot in front of you. He has to see you BEFORE he's turning and make sure he has enough time to get ahead of you."Again, at a stop sign you don't have right of way. The fact that he was driving a car that takes longer to turn and the fact that he didn't have right of way is more than enough reason for him not to go.

If I hit the passenger side of his car,how was he(driving) in front of me?Just curious.Also, where in the drivers manual does it say, if you hit a car you are at fault?


zirito 
21710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15

kamahl01 wrote:


zirito wrote:


kamahl01 wrote:


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?


If you want people's opinions and this is the reason you asked...

0. Did I say you made any unproven claims? Everything I listed was a fact. You were going straight on a main road with an appropriate speed limit for avoiding collision with adjacent traffic. You definitely should have been able to break faster at 30-35 mph speed limit with visible incoming traffic. If you wanted to make a false claim, you could have said literally anything. It's not pointless to argue his stopping at the sign if he truly didn't stop at the sign. He didn't fully admit anything. This is useless to your case.

1. When did I say you can prove he was going to fast? He doesn't need to prove anything. You hit him.

2. Why would you even have to "prove" you stopped fast enough?

3. This is irrelevant. He doesn't have to see you once he's already claimed his spot in front of you. He has to see you BEFORE he's turning and make sure he has enough time to get ahead of you.

By right of way laws, the car in front of you has the right of way. You're not allowed to hit the car in front of you. Plain and simple. Insurance companies have it in their interest to give you NO money if possible. Some of the factors mentioned could prevent you from getting any compensation.

PLEASE TELL ME THE PART WHERE I SAID YOU MADE ANY UNPROVEN OR FALSE CLAIMS?


Edit: I'm responding to your post with simple logic because nothing you said made any sense or relevance to my post. It's like you were responding to a completely different person, or simply very poorly read what I said without any proper understanding of what should be easy to comprehend. You should carefully reread my first post on all points before you further embarrass yourself.






0.you said"You have to get yourself out of this with unproven claims"". What did I state that their isn't proof of?

1.I neve said he was speeding or used that in my defense at all.I simply stated that a person on a main road with no stop sign has right of way over a person coming from a side street with one.

2.you said."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)" If thats not you saying that I have to prove I stopped as soon as possible,I don't know what is.

3.you sai"This is irrelevant. He doesn't have to see you once he's already claimed his spot in front of you. He has to see you BEFORE he's turning and make sure he has enough time to get ahead of you."Again, at a stop sign you don't have right of way. The fact that he was driving a car that takes longer to turn and the fact that he didn't have right of way is more than enough reason for him not to go.

If I hit the passenger side of his car,how was he(driving) in front of me?Just curious.Also, where in the drivers manual does it say, if you hit a car you are at fault?




0. You DIDN'T state anything about lack of proof, at least not the proof you're lacking. He's not lacking any proof because YOU HIT HIM

1. Right of way DOESN'T mean you can hit traffic that gave you enough time, distance, and visibility to SLOW DOWN. PROVE he didn't give you enough time to slow down.

2. Yes, prove you stopped as soon as possible. It will help your case if you can prove it was impossible to avoid collision.

3. It doesn't matter if his car takes longer to turn if he gave you enough time to SLOW DOWN.
PROVE he didn't give you enough time. He doesn't need "right of way" if there was enough time for you to slow down. PROVE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO SLOW DOWN

If you hit his car while you were moving straight forward, how was he NOT in front of you(driving)? Just curious. Also, where did I say the drivers manual says that?
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15

zirito wrote:

0. You DIDN'T state anything about lack of proof, at least not the proof you're lacking. He's not lacking any proof because YOU HIT HIM

1. Right of way DOESN'T mean you can hit traffic trying to turn into your lane.

2. Yes, prove you stopped as soon as possible. It will help your case if you can prove it was impossible to avoid collision.

3. It doesn't matter if his car takes longer to turn if he gave you enough time to SLOW DOWN.
PROVE he didn't give you enough time. He doesn't need "right of way" if there was enough time for you to slow down. PROVE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO SLOW DOWN

If you hit his car while you were moving straight forward, how was he NOT in front of you(driving)? Just curious. Also, where did I say the drivers manual says that?


What this comes down to is right of way and assessment of blame.You keep saying "you hit him", but according to law, he isn't suppose to turn into traffic if it isn't clear to do so. The argument that he gave enough time to slow down doesn't hold much merit. If I was going fast like he claimed, wouldn't that be even more of a reason to wait? he was "in front of me" he wasn't "driving straight" in front of me. Big difference and the reason why fender benders are completely one-sided(in favor of the person hit).The fact that I was their before he completed his turn is proof that he went to fast.

He either had right of way or he didn't. You cannot merge onto a major street at a stop sign ahead of someone going straight with one. This is the law,not my opinion. Also,I'm not trying to make this personal, just stating what I believe to be driving law.





Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15
Unless there's witness, you can probably leave this to be half in half. Fat car should know if they can successfully make a turn fast enough. A slow turn as you claim means the driver made no attempt to judge how he could make a successful turn to a 30m per hour road. It's probable that even at 30 miles per hour, this car would expect to get hit.

He needed to move fast but didn't.

Unless there's some information missing.

You could ofcourse say the same, that the small car should have been more prudent and slowing down a little. If cars tend to park on this road say...

And really, with your circumstance, you should be driving less like you own the road, grey area or not. The way you were moving means you thought the road was empty in front of you. He then could be less at fault for not expecting you.
11012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/31/15

severticas wrote:

Unless there's witness, you can probably leave this to be half in half. Fat car should know if they can successfully make a turn fast enough. A slow turn as you claim means the driver made no attempt to judge how he could make a successful turn to a 30m per hour road. It's probable that even at 30 miles per hour, this car would expect to get hit.

He needed to move fast but didn't.

Unless there's some information missing.

You could ofcourse say the same, that the small car should have been more prudent and slowing down a little. If cars tend to park on this road say...

And really, with your circumstance, you should be driving less like you own the road, grey area or not. The way you were moving means you thought the road was empty in front of you. He then could be less at fault for not expecting you.


Thanks everyone for the advice, especially the worst case scenario ones. Like I said, I'm new to this and my first car that I've had for 10 months is a mess,lol....I'm thankful no one was hurt and its just a car in the end.Funny enough, its still running great even with the dilapidated right headlight and bumper :D. I can only wait and see what happens but either way,lesson learned.
Posted 1/31/15
Don't worry, young people always get into an accident at least once from what i've noticed.

Don't give out too much detail and let the insurance settle this.

18906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/31/15
The police report is going to be the determinate factor, the failure to stop is going to be the key factor. Since you were not ticketed at the incident scene you are better off. Make sure you are treated fairly and if you are to worried consult a lawyer, usually they will review it to see if you have a claim for no cost or through legal aid in your area. It was an "accident" and not an "on purpose", accidents happen and its why most states are "no fault".
16065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Bay Area
Offline
Posted 1/31/15 , edited 1/31/15
You did one thing right with this accident and its having a Police Report.

It depend on the insurance policy both parties have because depending on the policy it will effect the outcome. Ex. If the person in the other car does not have insurance it means you will have to contact your insurance to handle paying property damage and med pay which is medical cost. Now your insurance will only pay for these if you have no UM in your policy which stand for Uninsured Motorist, If you don't have that then your screwed. (remember people always get UM in your policy)

When it comes to what the insurance company is willing to pay it really depends on the Adjuster handling your claim and how much liability is being accepted. The insurance company can say "we accept 80 % liability" which would mean they will pay 80 % of what it cost to fix your car and medical expenses.

My advice to you would be is to contact a good personal injury attorney and see if they are willing to take your accident. A good attorney will not charge you to consult with them about the accident. If you decide to do everything yourself be VERY careful what you say to the insurance company for the other car over the phone or in person because they will try to use against you. Also look into how long you have to settle everything with the insurance before you need to file a lawsuit to. Where I live the time span is a year and a day from the time of accident. Hope it does not get to that point for you and best of luck.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.