by nixy23 » Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:19 am
Another question is, in the state of Hawaii, who is liable in the case of a 3 car accident? In my statement, the person in front of my was at a stop, and as I was slowly approaching to stop behind him, the car behind me hit me and i propelled forward and hit the car. More damages were made to the front of my car and only scratches to the back but the insurance rep of the car behind me stated that my damages were inconsistent and that maybe i was the one who hit the car in front of me first and then the car hit me from behind. If that was the case, why didn't the person in front of me have more damages to their rear bumper (they only had minor damages)? Of course, I would get the most damages since I was right smack in the middle of the accident.
Under my relative's insurance (GEICO), they want to investigate whether or not I was covered under the insurance, and if I wasn't covered, then if the fault was blamed on me then they wouldn't have to cover any damages. The other thing is that the insurance representative of the car behind me is also from GEICO and he had stated that they were going to be liable for my damages and told me to get an estimate. Now that they've seen my damages which is a total loss, they're claiming that my damages were inconsistent. This has really been stressing me out since I feel that I am getting screwed around with. Anyone, please help on what I should do now. Thank you!
Under my relative's insurance (GEICO), they want to investigate whether or not I was covered under the insurance, and if I wasn't covered, then if the fault was blamed on me then they wouldn't have to cover any damages. The other thing is that the insurance representative of the car behind me is also from GEICO and he had stated that they were going to be liable for my damages and told me to get an estimate. Now that they've seen my damages which is a total loss, they're claiming that my damages were inconsistent. This has really been stressing me out since I feel that I am getting screwed around with. Anyone, please help on what I should do now. Thank you!
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:39 am Post Subject:
Of course, I would get the most damages since I was right smack in the middle of the accident.
That could easily be proved if you have the pics of your car before & after the accident. Or for that matter you should possess the pics of the other car post-accident (in order to prove your reasoning)Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:41 am Post Subject:
In my statement, the person in front of my was at a stop, and as I was slowly approaching to stop behind him, the car behind me hit me and i propelled forward and hit the car.
If the vehicle behind you hit your vehicle pushing it into the vehicle in front of you (one impact to the vehicle in front) they guy behind you is at fault for everything...HOWEVER rest assured the ins carrier will take statements from the vehicle in front of you, if they felt two (rather than one) impact...you will likely be at fault for atleast some of the damage to the rear of that car...I hate these claims...have them more than you'd think..generally the lead car will know with a high degree of certainty how many impacts there were...the problem comes sorting out the damages to the rear of that car and front of yours...makes my head ache just thinking about it........If that was the case, why didn't the person in front of me have more damages to their rear bumper (they only had minor damages)?
This isn't uncommon, the front end of the car will generally sustain more damage that the rear of the car...think about it in the front you have grilles, head lamps, (lots of plastic) to break and cause further damage...again the number of impacts the lead car felt will clear you or hang you...Now that they've seen my damages which is a total loss, they're claiming that my damages were inconsistent.
Inconsistent with what? you were clearly the center of the 'oreo cookie' right? Was there some prior damage to your vehicle? front or back? (be honest not like we are handling the claim) is that what they are saying?This has really been stressing me out
all accidents are stressful, I totally understand that....I feel that I am getting screwed around with
Wait now, Gieco has agreed to accept liablity for the rearend damage to your vehicle correct? caused by the guy behind you...is the only dispute the front damage, and if you hit the lead car first then again after the vehicle behind you hit you? Is that the problem? Has Gieco inspected the vehicle in front of you? Just because a bumper cover has a scratch does not mean that there couldn't be extensive damage under that cover to the absorber, rebar, and even the rearbody panel..I've seen this time and time again, if the car in front of you had a urethan cover they are made to take a hit, dent in and many many times pop right back out, unless that vehicle was on a hoist, or the rear cover off that car, then there is no way to know for sure there wasn't extensive damage behind that cover....Anyone, please help on what I should do now. Thank you!
Please let us know exactly what that disagreement is (re:damage)...I'm not real clear in what the inconsistancy is about.Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:43 am Post Subject:
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:43 am Post Subject: Isn't Hawaii a pure state?
I believe Hawaii has a pure no-fault system. Am I right? (If so, then you can't sue each other) If it is difficult to understand who the real party at-fault is, then your auto policies must pay towards your injuries as well as property damages. In that case if your damages exceed your policy-value, then you have to feed it from your own pocket. At least, thats what I have in my knowledge. Sorry for what has happened...hope to get you better sooner...Jessie-hotter-than-b4
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:51 pm Post Subject:
Yeah, a 'hot jessie' this isn't really acurate information...
I believe Hawaii has a pure no-fault system. Am I right?
yes you are correct they are a no fault state, but no fault pertains to injuries ONLY not the physical damage to the vehicles...Hawaii is a considered a "no-fault state", which means your motor vehicle insurance company will pay the bills for your injuries and your passengers' injuries up to the personal injury protection benefits ("PIP") limit. And you cannot sue or be sued unless there are serious injuries. Because "no-fault" applies to injuries, not to vehicles or property, the driver-at-fault in an accident is responsible for damages to vehicle and property.
(If so, then you can't sue each other)
this is incorrect...If it is difficult to understand who the real party at-fault is, then your auto policies must pay towards your injuries as well as property damages. In that case if your damages exceed your policy-value, then you have to feed it from your own pocket.
This is incorrect as the OP's damages would be paid under their collision coverage which is an ACV coverage, meaning there is NO LIMIT.. the limit is the ACV (actual cash value) of the vehicleAt least, thats what I have in my knowledge
I think you are confusing the insureds damages/coverages with their liablity or property damage coverage, (pays to repair the other persons vehicle)....Hawaii is a 51% rule state... Proportional Comparative Fault at 51%Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 04:41 am Post Subject: Thanks!
this is incorrect...
Thanks for clarifying Lori...probably I mixed up a few things :)
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 05:10 am Post Subject: Could it be like this?
Its Great Lori!
Thats perhaps the way to do it...make things clear one at a time!
I had learnt of a similar experience in Michigan, where the drivers are required to repair their vehicles irrespective of who is at fault. You may report it to the at-fault party's insurer, who in turn may offer to repair it (or assume it as a total loss). [Now, I have a question to Lori over here- Under no-fault system if I be a party at-fault in an accident, does that mean I'd get no such option to get it repaired through my insurer at all? (Or are there any conditions where it might even happen?)]
Also observed, that in Michigan it is allowed to file a lawsuit (referred to as a mini-tort) upon the party at-fault. This lawsuit was perhaps restricted to $500. So, the worth of damages from the at-fault party + the worth of money obtained through this lawsuit = what you could get!
Now, Lori you'd probably be the best judge to explain if I got it wrong somewhere.
Regards,
ArindamSenIndies
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:06 am Post Subject:
[Now, I have a question to Lori over here- Under no-fault system if I be a party at-fault in an accident, does that mean I'd get no such option to get it repaired through my insurer at all? (Or are there any conditions where it might even happen?)]
If a person has collision coverage they can ALWAYS use it, (have their own carrier repair their vehicle)..Easiest way to remember it is to take the 'nofault' out of the physcial damage portion of the claim...no fault pertains to injuries ONLY...course then you have to find out the 'type' of negligence laws of the state...if their is any contributing negligence on the other party, then depending on the states negligence laws, that person may or maynot be compensated for thier physical damage.So, the worth of damages from the at-fault party + the worth of money obtained through this lawsuit = what you could get!
ArindamSenIndies, I'm not sure I understand this I'll try and research Mich, and get back to this thread so I can explain it better, as (again) I'm not understanding (nor have I heard of) what you discribe here...Thanks for clarifying Lori...probably I mixed up a few things
no sweat Jessie I do it all the time... :wink:Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:27 am Post Subject: car accident
'Nixy'.......I've driven a friend's car, from time to time and I was covered, under HER insurance (providing I had insurance of my own). My question is..why WOULD'NT you be covered, under your relative's insurance?
Add your comment