by Guest » Tue Mar 04, 2008 07:43 pm
Who is liable in this case?
Both in error. She hit me, but insurance wants out on a technicality.
What happened:
I pulled into a side street to enter a parking lot. There were two entrances one directly on the corner and one roughly 2-3 car lengths down. I took the 2nd entrance. It turns out that it was one-way, but was not well marked. I did not know until i had entered the lot.
I pulled in slowly, only as far in as, maybe 2 car lengths. I realized it was one way, so I was planning to simply back into a spot on my right.
This is when the incident occurred. I was stopped and a woman in one of the parking spots to my left, backed out, without even looking, right into my drivers side door. It hit right where my door meets the body of my car (2 door honda) Her car was fine. Mine was not. It should be roughly 800-1000 in damages as it is a new car.
This was my first accident. She admitted liability at the scene, but there was no witness. We exchanged info and i called my insurance right away. I took a picture and emailed it to her that night. It was private property so no police.
At first her insurance said they would take care of it. Now, her insurance is saying it is entirely my fault b/c of one-way parking lot, but she hit me!
I did enter the wrong way, but i was not moving and had she looked in her rear view, i was directly behind her. She would have hit me regardless of the direction i was facing at the time.
What rules/laws/regulations can i cite or find to say who is at fault? Even if it says I am. I just want to know. I agree that i was indeed in error as far as traffic laws...
However, as for the actual accident, it had nothing to do with what way i was going. She had a clear view of me, and a clear view of the street i came from, it was a very open parking lot, and it wouldn't have mattered what way i was heading. She simply did not look behind her and backed up.
Both in error. She hit me, but insurance wants out on a technicality.
What happened:
I pulled into a side street to enter a parking lot. There were two entrances one directly on the corner and one roughly 2-3 car lengths down. I took the 2nd entrance. It turns out that it was one-way, but was not well marked. I did not know until i had entered the lot.
I pulled in slowly, only as far in as, maybe 2 car lengths. I realized it was one way, so I was planning to simply back into a spot on my right.
This is when the incident occurred. I was stopped and a woman in one of the parking spots to my left, backed out, without even looking, right into my drivers side door. It hit right where my door meets the body of my car (2 door honda) Her car was fine. Mine was not. It should be roughly 800-1000 in damages as it is a new car.
This was my first accident. She admitted liability at the scene, but there was no witness. We exchanged info and i called my insurance right away. I took a picture and emailed it to her that night. It was private property so no police.
At first her insurance said they would take care of it. Now, her insurance is saying it is entirely my fault b/c of one-way parking lot, but she hit me!
I did enter the wrong way, but i was not moving and had she looked in her rear view, i was directly behind her. She would have hit me regardless of the direction i was facing at the time.
What rules/laws/regulations can i cite or find to say who is at fault? Even if it says I am. I just want to know. I agree that i was indeed in error as far as traffic laws...
However, as for the actual accident, it had nothing to do with what way i was going. She had a clear view of me, and a clear view of the street i came from, it was a very open parking lot, and it wouldn't have mattered what way i was heading. She simply did not look behind her and backed up.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:29 am Post Subject:
''binding'' means it sticks....re: arbitration is binding, meaning the decision reached by the arb board...will not change and both carriers have to accept (and pay) based on that decision...(no appeals).
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 03:42 pm Post Subject:
Thanks Lori. That makes sense. I guess it saves a lot af appeals and other problems doing it this way.
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 07:38 am Post Subject:
Many state require mediation or arbitration prior to the court hearing the case. These are usually non-binding in that, neither party is required to settle and the mediator or arbitrator cannot make them settle.
Sometimes both parties will agree to attending binding arbitration. This is where both parties agree to have a 3rd party hear their case, the arbitrator decides what should be done and each party is bound by this decision.
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 01:02 pm Post Subject:
I'm hoping to never have to go through anything like that..ever. The law seems really hard to understand...I'm guessing you guys have lots of schooling and experience...Thanks for explaining.
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 02:18 pm Post Subject:
Many state require mediation or arbitration prior to the court hearing the case.
It's been my understanding (if I'm remembering my law classes correctly :roll: ) that mediation is not binding, arbitration is....course what I was speaking to was .....crap tcope what is it called? The arb that 'most' carriers are members of? something something company arbitration?Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 05:39 pm Post Subject:
The arb that 'most' carriers are members of? something something company arbitration?
Your not going to make me say Arbitration Forums Inc., are you?AFI saves carries a lot of money but they don't play by the same rules of a legal court... not even close. In many cases this makes it a "roll of the dice" situation. You can have a case that would win in court every time, just to loose that case in AFI. The main problem is that the carriers never get to see the other carriers support documentation (only their contentions). So, for example, one carrier could have a recorded statement from one person who would not give their statement to the other carrier. The statement could be bias and incorrect. But it will never be shown as the carrier without the statement does not get a chance to see the statement or speak to the person giving it.
Adjusters can also be very creative in their submission, using certain words to sway AFI or even excluding all information that could hurt their case.
Sometimes both parties will agree to attending binding arbitration.
Usually court appointed mediation is not binding, but arbitration is something different. I think arbitration is allowed in every state as it's simply an agreement between two parties to have an independent 3rd party decide the outcome of a dispute. I'm betting their are laws governing how this is done but I can't see that any state would not allow it.Mediation would not be binding as it's simply a mediator going back and forth between the two secluded parties and trying to beat them both up so that they get to some common ground. I _love_ mediation's! It's funny to have the mediator come into your room, spend 30 seconds getting your point of view and latest offer and then shooting the breeze for 20 minutes as not to let the other party know how easy you were in agreeing to some term ("man, he's been in there for 20 minutes... they must really be debating something").
Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:45 am Post Subject:
Your not going to make me say Arbitration Forums Inc., are you?
No that's not it....I'll find out today, something like inner company arbitatration, blah blah...in my part of the world, company's (that agree) are members (signatures) of this arb. It isn't a company...it is comprised of higher level (branch managers on up I think) claims people from different company's that make up this 'arb board'...maybe six or eight from different companies they meet at a prescribed time (say every month) and hear the arb claims, then render decisions....It is not an arb. company....I agree tcope I love love love mediation! Have even considered going into mediation myself....for those of you that don't know, they make a pretty penny for not too awful much effort! :lol: :wink:
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 02:13 am Post Subject:
Go for it Lori from what I have seen on this site you really know your stuff. I think you'd do great.
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 04:39 am Post Subject:
Inner company arbitatration is what I always called it and how it was always stated to me.
Lori, as an independent mediations were great. It was usually a 4 to 8 hour day with lunch on the attorney. Since I was just eye candy for the claimant, I spent the first 10 minutes going over the case with the carrier's attorney. The rest of the time was spent BSing with the attorney or mediator about other claims or the claimant's attorney. You couldn't beat the per hour pay and if you can hook up with some carrier attorney firms and they like you, you always get the call. It also always beat climbing a roof or chasing down a witness.
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:30 am Post Subject:
Inner company arbitatration
YES that's it...thank you! :oops: :roll:You couldn't beat the per hour pay
I KNOW! It's a great gig, if you can get enough work! :DAdd your comment