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: Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:05 am Post Subject:
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...
I have for years...there is NO right answer...in a pure comparative state (such as mine) we used to settle these as 50/50 one party pays 50% of the other and visa versa, then more people started swackin (i don't blame them) because in their opinion we are paying and undervered or proven claim under their policy thus increasing their rates....this scenerio is not out of the relm of possiblity i assure you i've worked many many 'green light' wrecks without witnesses (everyone had the green) what is the right way to handle you tell me...paying each party is not the right answer...what if i back into you fred, then claim as this make up claim does...and oh oh my neck hurts bad....you rear ended me you mean body shop owner! i go to your carrier, you know damn go and well i backed into you rather than you rearending me...you got 1200 in phsyical damage i have 1500, you didn't get hurt, but seems i dating a chiropractor whos brother is a plantiff attorney...now you still ok with your company saying, 'you know fred you've been paying this liability premium so long lets just pay her...although you OUR INSURED told us you did nothing wrong...too bad fred...Lori here's your 1500k in physical damage, and another 100k for your bi...oh and you fred...that'll be an additional 30% premium from you buddy for about four years...how is that right? because that is what you want us to do!
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 02:47 am Post Subject:
.
.
.
Lori,
...too bad fred...Lori here's your 1500k in physical damage, and another 100k for your bi...oh and you fred...that'll be an additional 30% premium from you buddy for about four years...
Under the circumstances I described.... Hell-0 Yes pay them.
And don't forget the rest of my suggestion that the other insurer Pays my $300,000.oo BI to help me in my struggle to adjust with the idea and problems/ restrictions of being in an wheel chair for the rest of my life. Ya see, I'm not faking, I really need that payment.
And go ahead raise those rates 50% for the next Ten years. That sure beats the only other alternative of getting shorted out of that badly needed $300,000.oo. because neither I or you or either of the insurer's could prove absolute fault against one or the other.
FK
Isn't our justice system based on the belief that its better to let a few guilty men free than risk imprisoning ONE innocent man for Life.
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:39 am Post Subject:
And don't forget the rest of my suggestion that the other insurer Pays my $300,000.oo BI to help me in my struggle to adjust with the idea and problems/ restrictions of being in an wheel chair for the rest of my life. Ya see, I'm not faking, I really need that payment
Well then lets say in a situation where there is no way to prove the truth teller from the liar you are advocating paying the liar the same amount as the truth teller...never happen...however in a pure comparative negligence state it could go with the 50/50 i discribed in which you would get your 150k as would i and we would each get 1/2 of the vehicle damage too...so is that what you are saying is the solution? There is no way it can ever be 100% to both Fred..Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 07:07 pm Post Subject:
Still the Liar has harmed the truth teller. Is there any type of penalty for the liar if it is proved they did not tell the truth? I believe it would be insurance fraud right?
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 07:30 pm Post Subject:
Still the Liar has harmed the truth teller.
absolutely...Is there any type of penalty for the liar if it is proved they did not tell the truth? I believe it would be insurance fraud right
no it wouldn't be ins. fraud because it is the liar's ''version'' of the facts...now if the liar intentionally got rearended or something like that it's fraud, but doubtfull in this situation...it's just one of those crappy things in life that happen....there is no good answer to this IMOPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 01:07 am Post Subject:
I think we are all in agreement the liar wins...pure and simple...the honest guy loses...Fred says the carriers win too...but seriously they (on the ground level atleast) do not want to nor 'try' to . Believe me 99.9% of the adjusters want to pay what is owed to the innocent party...trouble is claims like this happen, and you cannot prove or disprove either story...that's when ya' just gotta hope Karma bites that liar in the a**
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 01:08 am Post Subject:
I would think that you would be able to tell wouldn't you, where did this happen in a parking lot? How was traffic moving or was it???? I would think that if it was possibly going to be a high paying claim then the insurance companies would have a better intrest in investigating it more thoroughly.
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 02:26 am Post Subject:
Did you ever wonder,,,,,,,,,,,,,If you would have watched sixty minutes tonite, you would realize that in about 3-5 years the technology will be there to read the mind as to whether a thought was a lie or the truth. But would the cost to find out, be more than the claim was worth? Future policies might give insurers the right to subject you to this procedure under compliance to cooperate with an investigation portion of the policy. And would the thought be admissable in court or would you pay an attorney 2500 dollars to prove the procedure is not fulproof.
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 05:53 am Post Subject:
Don't know how I'd missed this one-
What difference is there between the above scenario and walking up to someone, pushing them to the ground and stealing $500 from their wallet?
I won't say there is much difference..excepting for those at-fault who I'd spare due to their inability to comprehend things faster. I'd once been a witness to someone rear-ending very closely...and I must say the party at-fault was too shocked to reciprocate. He seemed too old and feeble to react to the circumstance. I'm sure, I'd not have accepted his pledge had I not seen it with my own eyes.
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 05:36 pm Post Subject:
Lori,
I think we are all in agreement the liar wins...pure and simple...the honest guy loses...Fred says the carriers win too...
What does the Liar win???
If the liar tells the truth they lose.
If the liar tells the lie they still lose!
The only WINNER is the Insurance Companies. Both of them..!!
FK
Add your comment