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: Mon Jan 05, 2009 07:38 pm Post Subject:
What does the Liar win???
No Fred the liar is the biggest winner of all! his policy pays nothing, nor does he suffer the deserved increase in premium due to his negligency that caused such grievous injury to the poor innocent, honest guy...you can't say that both carriers win...the liars carrier wins, the honest guys carrier loses because now they have to pay the collision coverage for their insured that the liars policy should've paid.Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 09:19 pm Post Subject:
.
.
.
Lori,
I think your altering the subject with your last response.
During this whole thread we (at least I) have been discussing BI coverage and the Clause that allows both insurer's to walk away without paying BI to either party. When neither insurer pays... how can either claimant be a winner??
The only WINNER is the Insurance Companies. Both of them..!!
How you say....
-----------------
because neither I or you could prove absolute fault against one and other.
----------------
The insurer that should have paid, did not, and the insurer that could have paid if the liar had been believed did not. Both insurer's win when its a tie. Neither one pays either of the $300,000.oo BI claims.
FK
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 09:39 pm Post Subject:
.
.
.
.
.
Lori,
Could you supply a Link to the Legislation that covers this Topic. I would like to see exactly how it is written.
Thanks in advance.
(if your wondering... about 19 out of 20 times when I try to find something on a Government site it usually takes me about three hours to realize I'm not going to find what I'm looking for and just give up.)
FK
PS, I enjoy our discussions, they stay civil and reasonable. And we both get a little off track every so often. :)
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:37 am Post Subject:
I think your altering the subject with your last response.
No Fred, (least I didn't think I was :? )...my point was that the liar got his vehicle repaired, (and rated as a 'non-chargeable' accident) did not have to repair the other vehicle (thru his policy ) nor pay the injured innocent your 300k injury claim...thus saving him his rate increase (that he not only deserved but would've been assessed) if his carrier (had he told the truth) would've paid.Could you supply a Link to the Legislation that covers this Topic. I would like to see exactly how it is written.
Not exactly sure what you want me to find Fred....if you mean the negligence laws (ie MO is pure comparative)? sorry, I may be a little 'thick' right now have had a few rough days....please explain what or which area you would like me to try and find...ps
..PS, I enjoy our discussions, they stay civil and reasonable.
I have a lot of respect for you Fred...and couldn't agree more..And we both get a little off track every so often.
:lol: :lol: reakon that's our age showing? :lol: :lol: :wink:Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 03:18 am Post Subject:
.
.
Lori,
I latched onto the BI non-payment comment in the OP's initial post and never let go. You drift to other aspects of the claim, but I keep bringing it back to the BI non-payment. (like I'm doing now)
BI non-payment..... that's my story (point) and I'm stickin to it.
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]
Later in the Thread I introduced the $300,000.oo BI injuries to each claimant to express the potential severity that could fall onto both claimants do to such an action.
FK
PS, on the legislation Link... I'm looking for the reasoning/wording that would allow the two Insurance Co.'s to not pay either BI claim if Fault could not be determined. And if its not too much trouble, which states allow this to happen. Pa.?? NY?? I travel in both of these states.
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:57 am Post Subject:
Ok, sorry so you want to be addressing the bi settlements only (of 300k)..that's fine, still the same, if you pay a bi you paid the pd and visa vera of course the truely injured truth teller loses...but the liar wins because his carrier didn't pay out that 300k...thus his premiums stay in tact...he gets a non-chargeable accident and collision payment...that's it (course that's all the poor truth teller gets too)....only way I could see out of this is .... arbitration, which could (most likely) would also come to a stale mate. or truth teller sues liar....if he can prove it in court then of course liar has to pay....
I'll look Fred, but I think what I'm going to find (i'll ck the negligence laws too) is plain old negligence...meaning, 'we didn't do it, we're not negligent, therefore not liable, so we're not bound to pay'....i'll see what i can fi nd today
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 01:02 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Lori,
the truely injured truth teller loses...but the liar wins because his carrier didn't pay out that 300k...thus his premiums stay in tact.
Sorry... you can repeat it all you want, but, there is no way that any two rational individuals with over $300,000.oo in unpaid medical bills [each] could ever think they came out a winner because ""their *premiums* won't go up a few hundred bucks for the next few years.""
Huuuuummmmm, which would make me a winner.
Save up to $700.oo over the next few years because my premiums didn't go up..!
--- OR ---
Receive $300,000.oo so I can pay my medical debt & the premium increase??
FK
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 05:26 pm Post Subject:
no no fred...the liar was NEVER due the 300k (he can have that much in injury but he was NEVER DUE IT because he knows he's a liar..so you can't say he was a loser for not getting that 300K, He does win though in that his premiums won't got up for paying a 'chargeable' accident..
Huuuuummmmm, which would make me a winner.
:wink: :)Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 07:21 am Post Subject: re:
Break it up, kids.
FK,
You have missed the main point of this thread. It is not to determine winners and losers, it is to demonstrate why it is wrong to lie about how an accident happened.
However, since you've hijacked the topic, I'm going to side with Lori in the explanation that the liar is the winner (if anyone is to win). The insurance companies may benefit as a result of liability non-payment (the case in which 300k is not paid because of disputed liability is few and far between), but that is not the intent or objective.
There are many accidents (like the one described in my original post) in which the truth of what happened simply cannot be determined when there are divergent statements. That is no fault of the adjuster, however.
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 06:25 pm Post Subject: re: what if
It is a "what if" scenario based on a low impact collision.
Add your comment