| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: Advice to people involved in an accident #2 |
|
|
Don't lie about how the accident happened.
It sounds simple, and yes, many liability disputes are the result different perceptions of the what happened or an optimistic interpretation of vehicle code and comparative negligence.
Let me paint a picture of a typical claim in which one of the parties unambiguously MUST be lying:
X states "Z rear-ended me."
Z states "X backed into me."
There are no independent witnesses. Both parties claim soft tissue injuries. Both insurance companies side with their insured and deny the opposition's claim. Because of the lack of independent evidence, both companies forfeit their subrogation rights. Each party pays his own deductible and because neither company accepted liability, neither person was compensated for pain and suffering.
The person who lied cost the person they hit the amount of their deductible (on average, this is $500), physical pain, stress and time lost in dealing with an accident.
What difference is there between the above scenario and walking up to someone, pushing them to the ground and stealing $500 from their wallet?
What does the liar gain? People typically lie because they don't want their premiums to increase. The liar may save himself a few thousand dollars over the next few years, while he may have been responsible for much more money in property damage and injury.
Any liars out there want to volunteer justification?
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymousadjuster
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So the winner is the liar. |
|
CrazedEpidemic
New member
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 49
Location: NYC
8.86 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Any liars out there want to volunteer justification? |
Come on now suga' you know that ain't happen' 
I've noticed (and remarked) an alarming trend in this in the past nine months or so (since the economy really tanked I assume)...I used to get maybe a few a month, with some type of lie, mostly 'it wasn't like that before the wreck! i know i only have a small scratch on my rear bumper cover, but really it did cause my wind shield to crack'  to now, it is more than 50% of the claims I handle there is 'something'...someone trying to get more than they have coming....I'll never understand how truely ''good folks'' find no shame in lying to an insurance company...it's remarkable...
Crazed,
| Quote: | | So the winner is the liar. |
Only momentarily and occasionally...I don't think anyone 'gets away with' things like this for long...Karma is a bi--h, and she will kick your butt when you least expect it.. 
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'll never understand how truely ''good folks'' find no shame in lying to an insurance company...it's remarkable... |
Yes, I'd also believe them to be short-term gainers...and in the long run they'd have only themselves to be blamed. We'd always come across a few of them with carriers denying a renewal. These are people who'd end up paying huge premiums for a small coverage at last!
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymous00
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
.
.
.
anonymousadjuster,
You state:
"" X states "Z rear-ended me."
Z states "X backed into me."
There are no independent witnesses. Both parties claim soft tissue injuries. Both insurance companies side with their insured and deny the opposition's claim. Because of the lack of independent evidence, both companies forfeit their subrogation rights. Each party pays his own deductible and because neither company accepted liability, neither person was compensated for pain and suffering. ""
If I'm reading this correctly... at least the insurer's saved a few bucks.
How was the Honest consumer in this scenario made Whole?? [they had no control over the Liars statement]
FK |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 290
Location: Pa.
41.08 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The way I look at it is one day these liars will get caught and their word will mean nothing. What really gets me is when they actually get away with it. I see it all the time and its disgusting. Anonymous is correct..it is like throwing them down and stealing $500 right out of their pocket. |
|
fireyone
Senior member
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 1993
2.31 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You all seem to be missing the point...! in anonymousadjuster's scenario the big loser is the Honest Claimant. The liar (at fault party) would have had to pay a deductible anyway. And on top of that... The Big Winner is the insurance companies because they don't pay possibly a Hundred Grand worth of "pain and suffering" for either one.
Tell me -- fireyone, --
How will you feel about your Insurer after paying the Higher "Full Tort" premiums for ten years or so, and you tell the Truth about your accident yet your insurer denies your much needed "pain and suffering" claim because the other driver lied about the accident. As anonymousadjuster implies in his/her scenario?? Re-Paste below
=====================================
X states "Z rear-ended me."
Z states "X backed into me."
There are no independent witnesses. Both parties claim soft tissue injuries. Both insurance companies side with their insured and deny the opposition's claim. Because of the lack of independent evidence, both companies forfeit their subrogation rights. Each party pays his own deductible and because neither company accepted liability, neither person was compensated for pain and suffering.
======================
If I'm reading this correctly... at least the insurer's saved a few bucks.
How was the Honest consumer in this scenario made Whole?? [they had no control over the Liars statement]
FK |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 290
Location: Pa.
41.08 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | your insurer denies your much needed "pain and suffering" claim because the other driver lied about the accident |
No fred you got it wrong, it would not be YOUR insurer it is the 'at fault lying claimants' insurance company that would be denying pain and suffering under their insured's bi coverage...you cannot collect liability from yourself...the opposite is also true. say you are the liar, your company denies the poor innocent claimant..these are terrible claims to handle...but fred, if you are my insured in this scenerio, and you come to me and say, 'lori, he rearended me' and he say's 'no way fred back right up on me'....you don't want me to belive him right? of course not the benefit of the doubt goes to my insured if all else is equal...I really don't see your gripe, ''your insurer'' did exactly what they have promised to do.
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:25 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
Lori, I believe because this forum is anonymous we can have some honest liars confess.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymousadjuster
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd go with FK this time, IMO the greatest gainer in this situation is the at-fault driver's insurer. Lori, do you think that the insurer might have an interest in not investigating the situation more thoroughly?
I also have another question, what are the chances of the above situation to happen that the responsible party can walk away without paying the damages just by twisting the story? Ain't the claim adjusters responsible for finding out the truth?
~Jeremy |
|
JeremyHolter
Senior member
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 1194
210.30 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:54 am Post subject: reply to Jeremy |
|
|
The point of this hypothetical is not to see who gains the most. But, to go along with that, in this simplistic version, let's say the insurance company saves $10,000 by not paying out any liability. The at-fault liar saves $2,500 in not having his premiums increased. The insurance company's net saving is then $7,500 ($10,000 - $2,500). The $2,500 likely represents a greater percentage of the liar's assets than $7,500 would of the insurance company's assets. That's not the only measure of "greatest gain," but if following the simplistic analysis the liar gains the most, or to rephrase, loses the least.
What are the chances a liar can walk away without paying the damages?
Without the support of independent evidence (ie. witnesses, video footage), the liar's insurance company will likely support the lie (keep in mind, the adjuster doesn't know who the liar is). Even in claims in which the adjuster may suspect his insured is lying, he is likely to side with him unless the facts can be convincingly proven otherwise.
In the example from the original post, the damages resulting from backing versus rear-ending are pretty much identical (in a low impact collision.
Are the claims adjusters responsible for finding out the truth? Adjusters to their job as much as taking statements and inspecting scenes and vehicles allows. When there's no independent evidence, nearly every accident could be twisted by the liar into a not at fault accident.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymousadjuster
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm.....a food for thought  So, the total gain to the insurance company is negligible as compare to the gain of the liar driver. Well, your example certainly makes sense. However, if we assume that the number of liars has increased, then the money they can save on these claims for the insurer would also come to a significant amount.
Anyways, I agree that the adjusters have very little to do in these situations.
By the way, I'd certainly request you to become a registered member with this community. Its free!! |
|
JeremyHolter
Senior member
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 1194
210.30 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!!!
 | Quote: | | honest liars confess |
That's funny! ..and now I'm mad...I just spritzed coffee all over my keyboard and monitor...  
Perhaps that's why the word MORON is included in the word oxymoron.
Oxymoron:
"a figure of speech by which a verbal expression produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect"
Moron:
1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
2. Psychology. a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69. (Also known as POLI-TIC-SHAMS)
Honest Liars Confess; the new phase that pays in 2009!
_________________
Gary Spicuzza, *SAFE
Copyright 1956.
No Rights Reserved.
*Self Appointed Financial Expert |
|
GarySpicuzza
Forum Expert
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 959
Location: West Pasco County, FL
242.78 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Lori, do you think that the insurer might have an interest in not investigating the situation more thoroughly? |
No, and yes, they wouldn't intentionally not investigate it, because the outcome could be to their benefit, but yes, I guess in dollars and cents, if no one ends up paying liability then the actual cash pay out is less..I've been doing this a long long time, and have never ever had a carrier have any issue with accepting liability when it's warranted...now is there a question of the amount owed sometimes? yep...but not the acceptance initally.... | Quote: | | I also have another question, what are the chances of the above situation to happen that the responsible party can walk away without paying the damages just by twisting the story? |
Pretty damn good in this situation... | Quote: | | Ain't the claim adjusters responsible for finding out the truth? |
Sure is, but you tell me how can you tell who is telling the truth in a situation where the damage would be the same, and there are no witnesses? you can't so you have to take 'your' insured's word over the others...
On the flip side of this, I have handled many many claims over the years, when I KNEW my insured was lying and the physical damage or other evidence proved them lying, and I went against their wishes and 'word' accepting liability and paying the other party....it all comes down to being able to 'prove' or 'dis prove' the statement of facts of loss.
| Quote: | | Lori, I believe because this forum is anonymous we can have some honest liars confess. |
oh, anony. that cracks me up...isn't ''honest liars'' an oxy-moron? oh crap Gary beat me to that one! I do get what you are saying though and yes, we have had those tell 'us' the truth, while admittedly lying to the carriers...
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
.
.
.
Lori,
Your missing my main point..!
In anonymousadjuster's scenario the big loser is the Honest Claimant. The liar (at fault party) would have had to pay a deductible anyway.
But that's small potatoes compared to the *Hugh* Winners which would be Both of the insurance companies [that's plural... both companies hit the jackpot] because neither one will be paying [possibly] Three Hundred Grand for "pain and suffering" to either of the consumers. [I say Three Hundred Grand because that is becoming a common coverage amount]
What if its not a "$500 they might have sprained their ankle kind of claim". What if both claimants [around 25- 35 years old] are permanently disabled and will spend the rest of their lives using a Wheel Chair.
This is a huge conflict of interests. As Jeremy implied. This conflicting statements from the claimants gives both insurer's an opportunity to [wink,wink] agree to, proverbially throw their hands it the air and say " Hey...we can't determine Fault so we are outta here. Too bad, but hey we (the insurers) are keeping all the BI money... Ca-Ching..!!
Like they say, if it can happen.... with the Millions of claims year after year, somewhere out there it is happening.
I would like to think there is something to prevent this, beside having the injured parties spend the next five of six year battling in Court room after Court room. But then.... look what our legislators just did. They handed out $350,000,000,000.oo and didn't even ask the *Elite Welfare* recipients what they were going to do with the Money.
Just my thoughts.
FK
PS, this was a quick type, so please excuse [read through] the worse than usual grammar. |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 290
Location: Pa.
41.08 Dollars($)
|
|
