by Guest » Wed Mar 05, 2008 02:11 pm
Hi All,
I got questions for anyone or experts in auto insurance. My brother was involved in an accident a week ago. It was snowing pretty bad and my brother hit a lady in front of him who was trying to avoid another collision in front of her. She slammed the brakes and she was able to avoid the collision and my brother was not so lucky so he end up tapping her. She didnt have any damage on her car but my brother was left with cracked bumper. My brother reported to her insurance company since she suggested to call her insurance if there is any damage. Her insurance adjuster left a voicemail and said to fax the estimate of the damage. At this point, we were glad as we assumed she would handle the responsibility of this accident. We were gonna fax her the estimate today until we received a phone call from her stating that we should claim to our own insurance. Basically, she was telling us that it is not her client's fault that her client was only responsible for her own vehicle when she was trying to avoid the collision in front of her. In other words, its not her client's fault.
So who is at fault then? what did she want to have the estimate in the first place?
Can anyone help? Thank you.
I got questions for anyone or experts in auto insurance. My brother was involved in an accident a week ago. It was snowing pretty bad and my brother hit a lady in front of him who was trying to avoid another collision in front of her. She slammed the brakes and she was able to avoid the collision and my brother was not so lucky so he end up tapping her. She didnt have any damage on her car but my brother was left with cracked bumper. My brother reported to her insurance company since she suggested to call her insurance if there is any damage. Her insurance adjuster left a voicemail and said to fax the estimate of the damage. At this point, we were glad as we assumed she would handle the responsibility of this accident. We were gonna fax her the estimate today until we received a phone call from her stating that we should claim to our own insurance. Basically, she was telling us that it is not her client's fault that her client was only responsible for her own vehicle when she was trying to avoid the collision in front of her. In other words, its not her client's fault.
So who is at fault then? what did she want to have the estimate in the first place?
Can anyone help? Thank you.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 05:21 am Post Subject:
Hey, from your narration it seems that your bother was the at-fault party. However you can consult your own insurer and give your version to them. Most likely you have to file the claim with your insurer under the collision coverage, if you have the one attached to your policy.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 05:38 am Post Subject:
So who is at fault then? what did she want to have the estimate in the first place?
Well, soconfused, the verdict is likely to go against your brother. The lady was alert enough to avoid the collision but your brother was not. You need to pay more attention while driving through the bad weather.
Take care,
Bianka
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 06:53 am Post Subject:
Guys, I think its quite a complex situation. Though it seems that the OP was at-fault but at the same time we need to count the road/weather condition, which was bad, and also the fact that whether he had got enough time to react or not. Any more expert comments on this?
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:39 pm Post Subject:
OP was at-fault but at the same time we need to count the road/weather condition, which was bad, and also the fact that whether he had got enough time to react or not.
No, if he didn't have enough time to stop then he was driving too fast for conditions...I understand your confusion though, but just because an estimate is requested is no admission of fault....Your brother was 100% at fault (based on the info you provided).....more than likely it was a secretary or someone who just tells everyone to send an estimate....would be my guess...you brother is lucky there is no damage to the other vehicle as well, as he too would be responsible for that repair.Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 05:28 am Post Subject:
I would agree with Lori, your brother is 100% at fault. Even if he was going 5 MPH in the snow and the lady stopped and he struck her rear end, he was going too fast for the conditions or was following too close.
As for the request of the estimate, many times it is asked for prior to knowing all the facts of the accident from their insured. Some insurance companies also like to have the amount of damage in their file to know their exposure if the facts of the accident change down the road.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:52 pm Post Subject: Auto Insurance and who is at fault?
As for the request of the estimate, many times it is asked for prior to knowing all the facts of the accident from their insured. Some insurance companies also like to have the amount of damage in their file to know their exposure if the facts of the accident change down the road
Also, insurer's like this info in their respective Insured's file. It can and likely will be used in determining future Premiums.
FK,
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 01:08 pm Post Subject:
Also, insurer's like this info in their respective Insured's file. It can and likely will be used in determining future Premiums.
:? How do you figure this FK? It's a claimant estimate right? I agree they may want it to see the force of impact etc...but if they don't pay the claimant (do not accept liablity) then I don't understand your point here...it would be of zero consequence.Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 01:31 pm Post Subject:
Lori,
According to my Insurance Agent/Broker some insurer's will use an simple Inquiry of a potential accident scenario as though it actually occurred.
Before you Yell, PROVE IT etc....
I'll start...
PROVE MY BROKER WRONG BY POSTING AN INSURANCE REGULATION THAT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THIS PRACTICE...!
FK,
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 01:37 pm Post Subject:
Before you Yell, PROVE IT etc....
According to my Insurance Agent/Broker some insurer's will use an simple Inquiry of a potential accident scenario as though it actually occurred.
You are saying that if an accident is turned in, 'against' an insured (no collision claim PD only) they are not at fault at all, and ZERO payment is made, then the carrier can generate a rate increase? NO WAY...is that possible... I'll start...PROVE MY BROKER WRONG BY POSTING AN INSURANCE REGULATION THAT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THIS PRACTICE...!
OK, give me a minute.....if you'd like a different state let me know, I'll be sourcing most likely my state of MOPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 01:58 pm Post Subject:
Here you go FK, laying out that no increase can come from ANY accident that is not the fault of the insured...(which is this case clearly)...So how then would it be possible to generate a rate increase when not only was the insured not at fault but there was no payment made to the claimant?
From: 20 CSR 500-2.600 Rate Increases
PURPOSE: This regulation specifies one
form of unfair discrimination in modification
of rates applicable to policies of automobile
insurance where the claim under the policy is
not due to the fault of the operator. This regulation
was adopted pursuant to provisions of
section 374.045 and implements section
379.470, RSMo.:
PURPOSE: This regulation specifies one
form of unfair discrimination in modification
of rates applicable to policies of automobile
insurance where the claim under the policy is
not due to the fault of the operator. This regulation
was adopted pursuant to provisions of
section 374.045 and implements section
379.470, RSMo.
(1) Rate Modification Prohibited. Any rating
plan or rating system shall be considered
unfairly discriminatory within the meaning of
section 379.470, RSMo if the rating plan or
rating system increases the insured’s automobile
insurance premium as a result of an accident
for which a claim is made upon the
insured’s policy under the following circumstances:(A) The insured automobile was lawfully
parked (an automobile rolling from a parked
position shall not be considered as lawfully
parked, but shall be considered as being
operated by the last operator);
(B) The insured or other operator residing
in the same household or owner has been
reimbursed by or on behalf of a person
responsible for the accident or has judgment
against that person;
(C) The insured automobile was struck in
the rear by another vehicle and the insured
operator has not been convicted of a moving
traffic violation in connection with the accident;(D) The operator of the other automobile
involved in the accident was convicted of a
moving traffic violation and the insured operator
was not convicted of a moving traffic
violation in connection with the accidents;
(E) The insured automobile was damaged
as a result of contact with a hit-and-run driver
if the insured or other operator so reports
the accident to the proper authorities within
twenty-four (24) hours after discovery of the
accident;
6 CODE OF STATE REGULATIONS (3/31/05) ROBIN CARNAHAN
Secretary of State
20 CSR 500-2—DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE Division 500—Property and Casualty(F) Accidents involving damage by contact
with animals or fowl;
(G) Accidents involving physical damage
limited to and caused by flying gravel, missiles
or falling objects; or
(H) Accidents occurring as a result of the
operation of any automobile in response to an
emergency if the operator at the time of the
accident was responding to a call of duty as a
paid or volunteer member of any police or
fire department, first-aid squad or any law
enforcement agency.
(2) Any premium notice sent by an insurer
which increases the premium payable under
policies of automobile insurance as a result of
accident claims made under these policies
shall be accompanied by a notice which shall
specifically state the reasons for the increase
in premiums and the percentage or dollar
amount of this increase which is applicable to
accident claims made under these policies.
All these notices as required shall be submitted
to this department prior to their use in
this state to assure compliance with this regulation.
(3) In no event shall an insurer request an
increase in premium from any insured in connection
with any claim arising out of any
accident for which the insured was not at
fault. In connection with any accident caused
by the insured, an insurer may request an
increase in premium as a result of payment by
an insurer to or on behalf of the insured in
settlement of any claim made by or against
the insured.
AUTHORITY: sections 374.045 and 379.470,
RSMo 1986.* This rule was previously filed
as 4 CSR 190-17.100. Original rule filed
April 13, 1978, effective Aug. 11, 1978.
Amended: Filed Aug. 16, 1979, effective Nov.
15, 1979.
*Original authority: 374.045, RSMo 1967, amended
Add your comment