Cannon Cochran was the carrier

yolanda · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: Cannon Cochran was the carrier

Cannon Cochran was the carrier for a dump truck that hit my back fender. he was in the wrong lane to turn and i pulled into the bank beside him. He thought I had pulled on in but I stopped for a car that was coming and he hit my car. His boss was going to cut us a check but the amount probably wouldn't cover it or pay for the rental we would need so we filed with their carrier. After 3 weeks I called them and they informed us it was my fault so they weren't going to pay anything. Do I have any recourse ? Can my insurance help?

Fishman · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject:

First, the answer to you question is yes, if you carry physical damage coverage on your car, your insurance can definately help, that's why you have it. If you have not already, call your agent or company and report the accident.

The bigger question though, is: were you at fault or not?

The dump truck driver's carrier must have cited some reason for asserting that you were at fault right? I mean, when you called and asked when you could expect your car to be repaired did the person just say "It was your fault so we're not going to pay anything." Click.

I'd ask for their reasons for denying liability in writing, please let us know what they cite.

yolanda2 · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject:

yes they said I should have waited for him to pull out. They said I contributed to the accident. The cops also did not cite either of us. Just wish I had thought about just taking the amount the company was offering. I think I wouldn't have been as annoyed if they had just sent me a letter stating that a little sooner. She went from sounding all apologetic and friendly for taking so long to find my claim info to sounded freezingly hostile as she read her prepared statement. I guess I'm used to other agencies being more promp. Thanks for the reply

Lori · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 10:31 am Post subject:

After three weeks you should've already gotten a letter from the other carrier stating that they were denying your claim and why...you should still get a letter laying all this out (were I you I'd request one)...

Contact your carrier and file a claim, if you have collision coverage they will handle the damages to your vehicle less your deductible....If you do not or do not want to use it your only other recourse (that I can see) is to file a small claims court action...and let the judge decide who is at fault...

FK · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:44 am Post subject:

yolanda,

It appears that you should have taken the offer from his boss, under the condition it was an offer in good faith and that you would refund any excess and they would cover any shortage after the repairs were completed.

This way that check would be strong evidence that the truck driver accepted Fault should you need to settle this in Court. But Hind site is easy... I wish there was more I could offer to help you.

FK,

Fishman · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject:

FK,

The OP stated that the offer of private settlement was not enough (or probably not enough) to repair the car so it's doubtful they would have agreed to cover any "shortages after the repairs were completed"

I also don't think a check would be any sort of legal evidence that the dump truck driver was at fault. How would you suggest the OP would "prove" that the check was in payment of collision damage that the other party was responsible for?

Not to mention accepting a private settlement would have prevented the poster from being able to use her own coverage when/if the private settlement was insufficient to repair the damage/indemnify the OP.

So I don't see how your advice to take a private settlement so that it can be used as evidence in small claims court makes much sense.

Lets say she took the check from the truck owner, it turned out to not be enough for repairs and the owner refused to pay any more.

Assuming the claims department is not lying a court would have been just as likely to determine her to be at fault or at least contributing to the accident.

So now she has a car in need of repair, no chance of recovery under her own insurance (voided when she accepted private settlement) and she's also incurred court costs, attorney's fees, not to mention small claims suits take a lot of time.

How is that better advice than filing a claim under her own insurance.

BTW yolanda, have you done this yet?

FK · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject:

You seem to have forgotten a *Key* component of my thoughts.

""under the condition it was an offer in good faith and... ""

What small claims Court wouldn't honor that agreement??

FK,

Fishman · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject:

Are you an attorney FK? If you are please explain this "offer in good faith" and how it would be legally binding in this situation. I've done some googling and can't seem to find a clear explanation of how an offer in good faith would supercede actual existence or absence of liability in court. If the original poster was in fact responsible for the accident(as we are still waiting to learn), would the fact that the owner of the vehicle made an "offer in good faith" really trump who caused the crash?

Lets use a different scenario, if my son gets into a car accident and the other driver calls me and tells me that my son hit her car and she has minor damage to her bumper. I agree to an "offer in good faith" to pay for her repairs, then my son comes home and tells a whole different story, then we get a copy of the police report and find that the other woman actually was at-fault in the accident. Does my premature "offer in good faith" bind me to repair her car even though it's later revealed that my son was not at fault?

I'm not trying to argue I'm trying to help everyone in the community get the best advice and factual information about insurance matters so please do let me know more about how these "offers in good faith" work legally.

FK · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject:

.
.
.
I believe the term I used was *strong evidence*, Not Slam-Dunk. I think you may be reading too much into my comment. But that's a normal thing, I do it a lot myself. Smile

FK

In Discussion

Blogged

OurCommunityPower.org > Insurance Forum \| Debt Forum \| Mortgage Forum \| Credit Forum