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: Tue Jan 13, 2009 08:44 am Post Subject:
Hey AnonAdjuster, seems you have signed up finally. Nice to have you amongst us :D
It is a "what if" scenario based on a low impact collision.
But has generated a great discussion. Hope to see more such topics from you.
~Jeremy
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 03:01 pm Post Subject:
I too agree Jeremy. This has been a really good post and even if I do not reply I still follow the thread.
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:50 pm Post Subject:
Have had a lot of guest posts, it is nice to see them register and participate in the forum.
Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:48 am Post Subject:
Yes it is and its great to see there in input on subjects like these. One of the main things I like about these types of threads is when it goes from a real situation to a what if. I feel those that do not understand insurance well really learn from these post. FK and Lori have really made this thread informational and I enjoy keeping up with it.
Add your comment