| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: Comparative fault..its not only my problem! |
|
|
Hi friends..I'm pretty much confused about this concept of comparative fault. Can anyone depict such scenarios which involve comparative faults in auto accidents? What are the laws that govern such scenarios? Please guide me! Crossbreed
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Crossbreed
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Crossbreed,
I can only explain a bit about what happens under a pure comparative fault. Whenever you're at-fault, the worth of your damages would exactly be lessened by the percentage of your fault. Insurers would analyze the extent of loss caused by each party involved in an accident and arrive at the percentage of fault. That's all I may tell you regarding this one. Thanks, ArindamSenIndies |
|
ArindamSenIndies
Senior member
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 331
65.81 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey there!
Once the carrier arrives at the measure of faults concerning each party, they would share your share of the fault. It would solely be upon you to decide whether you would like to accept that evaluation. Under circumstances that you defy it, you'd need to hire an attorney. You may also have the option to convey the matter to your own carrier and ask them to consider it through your collision coverage. Evan |
|
evan
Moderator
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1285
178.21 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Contributory Fault proposition assigns the fault to both the parties involved in a car accident.
The Contributory Law proposes that both the parties contribute to an accident, however less the percentage is. The Pure Contributory law prohibits the party from collecting under the other driver's insurance if he/she has contributed even a percentage in the accident.
~Jeremy |
|
JeremyHolter
Senior member
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 1142
204.75 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
In a pure comparative negligence state....let's say that you and another person were backing at the same time in a parking lot, and backed squarely into each other...you are both 50% at fault lets say...your damages are 1k, other vehicles damage is $500..your policy pays them $250, their policy pays you $500...same thing only this time you are 90% at fault (other guy is 10%)...other party pays you $100 your policy pays them $450...in pure comparative each party pays the other the percentage they are at fault...
_________________
**************************************
Life gaurantees a chance NOT a fair shake
**************************************
FIND a way EVERY day to lighten the load of another
************************************** |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 6810
Location: Missouri
44.12 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_negligence
"Prior to the late 1960s, however, only a few states had adopted this system. When comparative negligence was adopted, three main versions were used. The first was called "pure" comparative negligence. A plaintiff who was, say, 90% to blame for an accident could recover 10% of his losses. (Of course, the defendant in such a case could recover 90% of his losses from the plaintiff.)
The second and third versions are lumped together in what is called "modified" comparative negligence. One variant allow plaintiffs to recover only if the plaintiff's negligence is "not greater than" the defendant's (viz., the plaintiff's negligence must not be more than 50% of the combined negligence of both parties).
The other variant allows plaintiffs to recover only if the plaintiff's negligence is "not as great as" the defendant's (viz., the plaintiff's negligence must be less than 50% of the combined negligence). The apparently minor difference between the two modified forms of comparative negligence are thought by lawyers handling such cases to be significant in that juries who ordinarily assign degrees of fault are much less willing to award damages to a plaintiff who is equally at fault than to one who is less at fault than the defendant." |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 2779
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
248.00 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:21 pm Post subject: help with adding images |
|
|
Hi,
I tried to add image but I don't know how to do this
Can anyone be kind to tell me how?
thanks a lot
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
kondomi
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Click on Poat Reply and then scroll down to Add Attachment. I think the problem is that you're using Quick Reply instead of Post Reply. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 2779
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
248.00 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Prior to the late 1960s, however, only a few states had adopted this system. When comparative negligence was adopted, three main versions were used.
The first was called "pure" comparative negligence. A plaintiff who was, say, 90% to blame for an accident could recover 10% of his losses. (Of course, the defendant in such a case could recover 90% of his losses from the plaintiff.) |
2 cars crash, each having $2000 in damage for a total of $4000 worth of damage to the two cars.
One insurer pays 90% of $2000 which is $1800.
The other insurer pays 10% of $2000 which is $200.
For a grand combined payout of $2000 by the insurer's.
This can't be right..!!
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) 
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 250
Location: Pa.
32.15 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 2 cars crash, each having $2000 in damage for a total of $4000 worth of damage to the two cars.
One insurer pays 90% of $2000 which is $1800.
The other insurer pays 10% of $2000 which is $200.
For a grand combined payout of $2000 by the insurer's |
Car A and Car B collide. Car A is 90% at fault and Car B is 10%. Both have $2000 in damages. Carrier for Car a pays the other person $1800 and Carrier for Car B pays the other person $200. What's wrong with that? I think your thinking, what happen to the other $2000. It was assumed by the drivers as your leaving out their ability to file under their own collision coverage for the difference. That is, your not accounting for any 1st party claims so each person ends up "eating" their own loss for their own negligence. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 2779
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
248.00 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
That also leaves 2 people having "deductibles" subtracted from the value of their claim instead of only one. Who gets a benefit from that??
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ )
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 250
Location: Pa.
32.15 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That also leaves 2 people having "deductibles" subtracted from the value of their claim instead of only one. Who gets a benefit from that?? |
The one person gets 90% of their deductible back, the other person gets 10% of their. Let me ask you a question... if you rear end someone, should anyone else have to cover your deductible? Same thing here... if one person is 90% at fault (almost the same as 100%), should someone else have to pay their deductible? |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 2779
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
248.00 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems as if the insurance companies are the true beneficiaries of this. Both parties pay their deductibles and both parties get an increase in premiums from their respective companies. The insurance company of the party at fault offers an 80/20 or 90/10 to the other company, which it accepts without question because the alternative is to actually do some legal work and actual investigation. Which means $$$. For the most part insurance investigators for some companies are akin to most real estate appraisers...highly paid, uneducated rubber stamps.
Someone who works for an insurance company- prove me wrong.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
AJ
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you are assuming that both get an increased rate. This is not always the case.
Who said anything about an insurance company not investigating a loss? Truth is, you're just making stuff up. I spend a good portion of my day investigating claims. In the case of auto accidents I obtain statements from both parties, I obtain a copy of the police report, I inspect the vehicles in the accident and I talk to any witnesses. What more would you have someone do?
If an adjuster does not think they should give up 10% or 20% then they won't. Just take a look at a company called Arbitration Forums Inc. They arbitrate a whole lotta claims each and every day when insurance companies can't agree on settlements,
| Quote: | | Someone who works for an insurance company- prove me wrong. |
Do you want to see my paycheck or the fact that I'm not getting a raise this year. Do I need to post my diploma?
Oh, and no Christmas Party either (which was just a dinner at a restaurant). |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 2779
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
248.00 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | For the most part insurance investigators for some companies are akin to most real estate appraisers...highly paid, uneducated rubber stamps. |
AJ, what are you basing this WEALTH of information you have? I'm with T, every single day a min. of 9hours a day work on claims in one way or another, statements, inspects, scene investigations, statements, tracking down people etc.. ... Last year got a 1% raise, this year probably none...the 'economy' you know.. 
What is it you do for a living AJ that you can make such harsh judgements about industrys and/or profession(s) you clearly know absolutely nothing about?
_________________
**************************************
Life gaurantees a chance NOT a fair shake
**************************************
FIND a way EVERY day to lighten the load of another
************************************** |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 6810
Location: Missouri
44.12 Dollars($)
|
|
