| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:46 pm Post subject: Insurance company only offering 80% |
|
|
So about one month ago I was involved in a car accident and the police officer that responded assured me that the other driver was at fault for failure to yield to the right of way. So because of this I decided to file through her insurance company, State Farm. It's been a month and now they are only offering me 80% for repairs because they feel I was partially at fault for the accident.
Basically I was driving and put my signal on to turn right, realized it was the wrong turn so I turned it off. This was about 100 feet from the intersection. A car pulled up and rolled through the stop sign and hit me. She claims she saw my turn signal on and saw me slow down to turn, but my signal was off and I never touched my brakes. I also did not have a stop sign and she did (which again she rolled through).
Anyway the officer said regardless of whether I had my signal on or not it wouldn't matter I had the right of way. State Farm is saying I'm partially at fault because of the turn signal. I don't find that fair at all, considering they didn't even fully investigate the matter. All they did was take both out statements, but they never contacted the other passenger of my car, and they never requested a Police Accident Report from my police department. The sided with her side of the things, which she said she was at a complete stop and by the time I turned my signal off it was too late for her to stop.
Anyway I just wanted to know if there's anything I can do, aside from file through my own insurance company (which I would rather not increase my rates). And also if that sound legit that I'm 20% at fault for an accident where she hit me.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Corence87
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The officer does not determine liability... especially for other parties such as the insurance company (same as the insurance company cannot tell the officer when to issue a citation).
I see the other carriers point of view and some adjusters would assign some liability for you having your blinker on and not turning. Other people should be able to rely on this information. Personally, I'd probably accept 100% liability because I know stuff like this happens all of the time and people can't really rely 100% on other people's signals. There is _no_ reason why the other person could not have simply waited to either make sure you were turning or passed by. I also think 80% is too high. I could see them putting 10% or 5% on you but I think 20% might be a little much.
You can do one of 3 things.... you can see if they might be willing too increase their liability to 90% or 95%. You can file suit against their driver and see what a judge says or you can file with your own carrier and have them seek 100% recovery against the other driver (no guarantees that they will get it and there are no guarantees that they won't take the 80% and refund 80% of your deductible). |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5070
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
273.06 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I could see them putting 10% or 5% on you but I think 20% might be a little much. |
I agree, seems a little much. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 911
Location: Kansas City
152.85 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm kind of curious what other adjusters would do in this situation. Trench, would you put any liability on the person with their blinker on? Seems you would as you mention 80% being a little much.
There is no right or wrong amount here... just opinions. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5070
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
273.06 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Intially I would say no. However, I had one onetime, where two vehicles had entered an intersection at the same time, where both vehicles were to yield to each other(which makes no sense-how does that protect anyone?). This was all caught on camera, so there was a little leverage. One car had briefly turned on his turn signal, then off to move up and make a turn. There was really no where for this other vehicle to go. Both drivers were equally at fault for not "yielding" each other. Have you had an accident claim at a round about? In KS, two I have done have labled both drivers some responsibility. It's stupid in my opinion. When you enter a round about, you yield to the traffic already in the round about. What are supposed to do when someone just come on in? |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 911
Location: Kansas City
152.85 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't hit her for any...the turn signal thing, I'd throw out, and hang my hat (and decision  ) on the fact that the OP had NO traffic control at all to contend with. The other party did. Regardless of whether or not she had a turn signal or a strobe light going, it was the other drivers duty to 'yield' to anyone, doing anything, and not make a move, unless and until that intersection was cleared, period...that's how I'd see it..but I don't work for State Farm either. 
I'm assuming that the OP admitted to the claimant carrier changing her mind on the turn signal deal..As T, said you have a few options...I'd think you'd have a good shot in arbitration, 'if' your adjuster does a good job of preparing for it..this too, takes quite awhile to get back.
I'd bet that you (and your carrier) are going to have a difficult time getting State Farm to roll back to 100% now. But I think I'd get the rules of the road, or regulations for the town this happened in...find the part about stop signs, copy that, along with the police report, and send it to them, with my arguement laid out, and see where it got me...'if' you feel like messing with it..if you don't then turn it over to your carrier, and let them fight it out with SF. You shouldn't suffer a rate increase, this 'should' be a non-chargeable accident with your carrier. Unless they find some fault with you.
Do you know is your state 'pure' comparative negligence? Or modified? If it's pure this would mean that you would owe 10% of that persons damages...
I don't have to tell you Trench, they are putting those round abouts everywhere in KC now...personally I agree and think every time anyone entering the round about is going to bear the fault if an accident occurs, but I've had two go to arb.
_________________
"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($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Lori, if I was on either side of this I would find the driver at the stop sign 100% at fault.
I guess what you have to do now is run the numbers. If you can get them to 90 or 95% you will be out x.xx amount of dollars. If you go through your own carrier you will be out your deductible and may only get back a portion of the deductible (say 80% of it). What dollar amount is less out of your pocket....then you have your answer. I would push the issue with the other carrier first (like Lori said). The worst thing they can do is not change their mind.
_________________
Can I say I’m working if I stare blankly at my computer all day? |
|
Dasfuk
Senior member
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 597
Location: Ohio
24.03 Dollars($)
|
|
|
|
heidrek
Senior member
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Posts: 236
36.87 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks everyone for your feedback. This was the point I tried to get across to them, and I even aquired a police report and faxed it to them. The dealbreaker here is on the report the officer wrote what both of us said, but he never said anything about local laws or the fact the driver at the stop sign was at fault. So essentially State Farm told me the Police Report only helps their POV that I was 20% at fault. So what I did was I filed a complaint with the State Insurance Department, basically saying they did a very shoddy job with their investigation. So I'm giving it another week to see if they change their tune any.
I also called Allstate, my people. They recommended taking the money sadly... their point is I have a $500 deductible, and State Farm is basically offering to fix all but $500 of the damage to the car. So this way it equals out and I don't have to file with Allstate.
But glad to hear you guys agree that the other driver sounds at fault, if not entirely than very nearly so. And I do appreciate the help, since I'm only 22 and this is my first accident. So thank you all 
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Corence87
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
And Heidrek yeah it is straightforward, however State Farm sided with her side of things. What she did was lie, or well obscure the truth, by saying she was at a full stop and she "observed" me slowing down to make the turn. I should also mention she didn't have her license on her so I don't see her being very believable. 
And this is why I filed with the State Insurance Department, because had they interviewed the passenger of my car, the only other witness, she would have backed up my story, but they never did that and refuse to now.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Corence87
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I also called Allstate, my people. They recommended taking the money sadly... their point is I have a $500 deductible, and State Farm is basically offering to fix all but $500 of the damage to the car. So this way it equals out and I don't have to file with Allstate. |
BAD, BAD, BAD advice!
I'm guessing you spoke to someone in your agents office and if you did... you NEED to file a complaint with SF about this!
First, if you accept the worst case scenario, the 80% from SF then filing the claim with them means you are out 80% of your loss (if the damages are more then $500, you lost more then $100. If you file under your policy you have a $500, Allstate collects _at least_ $400 of your deductible back and refunds this to you so you are out only $100 if you file with your own carrier. This is the way to go. Again, that is worst case. What _should_ happen is Allstate does no roll over for the 80%, files in arb and I'm betting they either get 100% back or more then 80%. Again, worst they can do is get the 80% and your still better off filing under your own policy.
Allstate should pay for your damage, less you $500 deductible, seek recovery against SF, not settle for 80%, and file in Arbitration for 100% of your loss. While arb is always a roll of the dice, Allstate would have _nothing_ to loose doing this. They know they will get their 80% and there is a _very_ good chance they will get more. You need to make sure that they file arb... don't let the adjuster roll over for the 80%.
Again, the IDIOT at Allstate who gave you this info should be fired! That person is an MORON!
The Dept of Insurance does not enforce liability issues, only Bad Faith and the like. The court system is for legal disputes.
If I was working for Allstate and filing arb, here is what I'd point out... that the other person acknowledged the fact that they saw you the entire time, that they had the duty to yield the right of way, that they acknowledge that they did not and that people cannot rely solely on someone's turn signal to guarantee that the person is going to turn at the spot they think they are going to turn. It's an indicator of an intention, not a guarantee.
OP... you need to file under your collision coverage!
Did I mention you need to report the BONEHEAD at Allstate who gave you the CRAP information? If the person is in your agents office (which I suspect they were) then they are _JUST_ trying to protect their bottom line by not having an insured with any claims experience. They were looking out for _their_ monetary interest... not yours. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5070
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
273.06 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me just break this down:
You have $2000 in damages...
Filing with State Farm you get paid $1600 so you are out $400.
Filing with Allstate you initially are out $500 but then you know you are going to get at last 80% of that back so you are are only out $100.
So far you see the math works if you file with Allstate.
But even beyond that, Allstate should seek 100% recovery. At _least_ they are going to get that 80% but there is a _good_ chance they will get 100%.'
So why not file with Allstate. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5070
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
273.06 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Again, the IDIOT at Allstate who gave you this info should be fired! That person is an MORON! |
No doubt. That's crazy talk. A lot of people these days are using fuzzy math. |
|
Trench
Senior member
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 911
Location: Kansas City
152.85 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I had one onetime, where two vehicles had entered an intersection at the same time, where both vehicles were to yield to each other(which makes no sense-how does that protect anyone?). This was all caught on camera, so there was a little leverage |
When there are cameras at intersections or on site such as Walmart, mall parking lots, convenience stores, gas pump sites, etc, is there a legal means to obtain video from the stores to corroborate a vehicle owners story, or would it take an attorney to subpoena this evidence. With digital cameras, video storage certainly isn't a hindrance. Anytime I have suggested a vehicle owner might request video surveilence it has been denied for proprietary reasons or they simply claim to erase dailey. When do insurers seek video for purposes of determining liability and would it even be permissable in court?
_________________
If you can't find the time to do it right, how will you ever find the time to do it over. |
|
MikeoftheOzarks
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 595
Location: in the missouri ozarks
191.27 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's pretty much standard practice that companies won't release video without a court order. Even when they don't have anything to so with the situation. If they do have something to do with the situation, I'm sure they will fight the disclosure. There is just nothing good that can happen to them if they release the video... only bad things.
Insureds use their insured's videos all of the time. I'm asking one of my insured for one right now to show me a slip and fall (which should be a legit slip and fall). |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5070
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
273.06 Dollars($)
|
|
