by Guest » Wed Dec 31, 2008 05:02 am
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?
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?
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:51 am Post Subject:
Hmmm.....a food for thought :D 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!!
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 01:08 pm Post Subject:
What!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!!!
:P
honest liars confess
:PThat's funny! ..and now I'm mad...I just spritzed coffee all over my keyboard and monitor... :twisted: :P :evil: :wink:
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!
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 01:39 pm Post Subject:
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....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...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.
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? :lol: 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...Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 03:04 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.
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 03:10 pm Post Subject:
FK, I would be angry if my insurer denied my claim but thats why I said it really is like the liar out right stealing from the innocent victim. We also have to look at the adjusters side of this..How can they know what really happened when there was no witnesses. You adjuster or insurance company most likely does not know you other than on a business level. If they did side with you in a "he said, she said" scenario then how is this adjuster going to explain to the people higher up how she/he came to this decision with out concrete proof. I think basically what this post is saying is the Liar hurts the innocent victim...and I could not agree more.
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 04:36 pm Post Subject:
the big loser is the Honest Claimant.
I agree...totally....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..!!
I disagree with the 'wink-wink' Fred, never happened in my career...and I ask you again, you are 'the honest' guy...what do you want your carrier to do? Do you want them to believe the liar, and pay out that 300k? Or believe you and deny him?Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:47 am Post Subject:
Lori,
I'll try one more time to clarify my point...
What if you and fireyone had both been paying for this $300,000.oo BI coverage for years and one day the two of you collide.
You both receive injuries that Cripple you permanently and each of you have expenses exceeding $350,000.oo.
Both insurer's are willing to Pay the claim as soon as Fault has been determined so they know which one to pay.
But there is a problem...
The physical evidence is inconclusive and your versions of what caused the accident differ and neither of you will budge on what you each know caused the accident.
In your own minds your each telling the truth and should be covered.
The result: Both insurers refuse to pay the claim.
Answer this...
Should both insurers be allowed to Keep all the Money and walk away leaving you and fireyone drowning in this debt after many many years of each of you faithfully paying for this coverage?
FK
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 12:28 pm Post Subject:
.
.
.
fireyone,
I think basically what this post is saying is the Liar hurts the innocent victim...and I could not agree more.
I agree whole heartedly. But here's the conflict of interest.
This scenario not only allows the Victim to be harmed again... it also Increases the insurance company's *Profits.*
On an National industry level that has millions of claims each year the potential of this little conundrum has got to be a substantial little profit center.
Consider this...
Being that the insurer has been paid in advance for years to cover the cost of *Paying* this loss amount, wouldn't requiring both insurers pay the claim unless *they the insurer can prove* they are not Liable..!! be a more reasonable action. In this way the conflict of interests would not only be greatly reduced, it would prevent the *true victim* from being harmed again.
Think about it...
FK
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 02:26 pm Post Subject:
But fred, aren't we then saying, guilty until proven innocent, and in your scenrio, we would be paying both for their injuries still not knowing who is at fault, then both carriers increase the rates of both parties? I don't see that as a solution...I ask you again...how do you determine the wrong doer?
Posted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 08:05 pm Post Subject:
.
.
.
Lori,
aren't we then saying, guilty until proven innocent,
If by that you mean like the current system where the innocent victim is being assumed guilty of being the At Fault driver and will not receive the benifits of both drivers loyally paying additional premiums for a coverage that will not be given to either of the two drivers that were harmed until they (one of the drivers) can Prove they are NotGuilty of being the At Fault driver... then YES, that's what I'm saying is wrong with the current system. We are finally on the same page!!
In this situation, why should the insurer have the Full Benefit of keeping all the money??? Its bazaar at best.
I ask you again...how do you determine the wrong doer?
Being that this entire Thread has been based on the premise of the claimants being unable to find physical or other evidence that would conclusively distinguish the at fault party, which allows both insurers to walk away without paying the due benefit. It makes your question irrelevant in this thread. After all if that question was answerable we would not be bantering these points to this extent.
Again my suggestion:
Being that the insurer has been paid in advance for years to cover the cost of *Paying* this loss amount, wouldn't requiring both insurers pay the claim unless *they the insurer can prove* they are not Liable..!! be a more reasonable action. In this way the conflict of interests would not only be greatly reduced, it would prevent the *true victim* from being harmed again.
If one the two insurer's thought they could recover their $300,000.oo by working harder & longer to find convincing evidence that the other is at fault. We can bet our booties they would be driven. Surely you won't deny that the insurer's would likely dig a lot deeper into the claim to recover that $300,000.oo
But the way it is now....... Why bother.... when its so profitable to do the minimum that is required to allow them both (insurer's) to walk away & keep $300,000.oo. each!!
Think about it...
FK
PS, fireyone, As far as having my premiums go up... Go for it. If I were one of these victims I'd gladly accept an $1000.oo annual increase, instead of being shorted $300,000.oo. I guess if I lived another 300 years the insurer would get all the money back.
Add your comment