by amylabrasca » Sun Jan 25, 2009 02:23 pm
I was recently found at fault by an insurance arbitraitor for a serious auto accident. The other driver was changing his tire in the middle of the passing lane of a major highway. I was traveling behind another driver and when he switched lanes, I had only seconds to react. The parked driver was charged with being parked illegally and the police were also considering charging him with more pending the outcome of my hospital stay. I was 6 months pregnant at the time. I was not charged with anything. My insurance says they found in favor of him because he claims to have had his hazzards on and because I hit him. It was a bright, sunny day and he didn't use flares. The police said there were other skid marks where other cars had to slam on brakes to avoid hitting him. Now, he is, of course, sueing me. I am outraged. This persons stupidity and illegal act almost killed me and my unborn son and he's going to profit. My question is how can this happen? Why do insurance companies seem to always find in favor of the person who gets hit no matter what the circumstance? Do I have any recourse? My insurance agreed to no appeal and the statute of limitations is up.
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 05:15 pm Post Subject:
Its probaly going to come down to the fact that you hit him from behind and with that they expect you to have your vehicle under control at all times. I know how frustrating it is especially wiht something like this or those last minute turn signals. There are experts here that will answer your question more professionally but if the statute of limitations is up and your insurance has agreed not to appeal you may have to just let it go. We will see what others say. Sorry this happened to you and your son. Was everything alright with your baby?
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 03:22 am Post Subject:
When reading this, don't mistake my comments….I do feel for your circumstance and I am not attacking you… just pointing out how your insurance is looking at this.
The other party's attorney is looking at this as you should have been able to stop, and really that is how your insurance carrier is looking at it. I understand that there was a car in front of you which blocked your vision until they swerved, but that does not change the fact that you should have been able to stop or avoid striking the other vehicle. I would guess that you were following too closely to the vehicle in front of you which did not allow you enough time to react once they moved.
Should he have been changing in tire in the middle of the road, no, but you still should be able to stop. Any vehicle should be able to stop before they hit a vehicle in front of them for any reason, unless someone cuts off your assured clear distance (tough one to prove without witnesses and really wouldn't apply here). Your carrier will use the fact that he was stopped in the middle of traffic, previous skid marks, no flares…. as mitigating circumstances to try and reduce their payment, but what it comes down to is if they denied liability you were still going to get sued.
There is common misconception that the police report is gospel in determining liability. Just because you didn't break a traffic law or receive a ticket doesn't mean that you are not liable. It also works the other way around.
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 08:46 am Post Subject:
The other driver was stupid no doubt but as Dasfuk has mentioned if you have had the opportunity to avoid the collision you are liable for the damages. Were you driving above the approved speed limit?
Dasfuk, if the OP gets sued would she receive legal assistance from her insurer?
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 01:47 pm Post Subject:
I'm sorry OP and I feel for you and am glad you now have a sweet healthy son...but this is what has hung you
when he switched lanes, I had only seconds to react
as well as thisThe police said there were other skid marks where other cars had to slam on brakes to avoid hitting him
. if it was lets say a 70mph highway you should've been a min. of 7 car lengths behind this guy (in front of you) which most certainly would've allowed you time to move over...we all do it, especially in congested traffic, but the fact of the matter is, although illegally 'parked' this other vehicle was a stationary object...and the rules of the road say that you will drive at a speed no greater than to be able to stop short of any obstruction...so had you been further back from the vehicle in front of you, you would've been able to stop...if the OP gets sued would she receive legal assistance from her insurer
yesMy question is how can this happen? Why do insurance companies seem to always find in favor of the person who gets hit no matter what the circumstance?
Well that's not true, it depends on 'how and why' they were hit...if that were a child on a bike, same thing would've happened right?Do I have any recourse? My insurance agreed to no appeal and the statute of limitations is up.
I don't know what you mean by they agreed not to appeal, and i further don't understand this statement.found at fault by an insurance arbitraitor
so you maybe mean a mediator? typcially claims don't go to arbitration untill there is a stand still, (neither ins. company will budge from their stance of liability) so either way at least initally your carrier must have been denying the other guy and backing you? Apparently they came to this stand still and went to either arb or med and I'm sure each signed an agreement to not appeal the out come of this, and abide or the decision was binding is that correct? If so then no there is no recourse.What were the injurys suffered by the guy changing the tire?
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 05:02 pm Post Subject:
Lori..is tha the typical rule 70 mph= 7 car lengths...60 mph + 6 car lenghths?
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:26 am Post Subject:
Lori..is tha the typical rule 70 mph= 7 car lengths...60 mph + 6 car lenghths?
yep, one car length per 10 mph there's also another trick, but i can't remember it for sure, the car ahead of you passes a sationary object and you count ''x'' number of seconds until you pass the same object..trouble is i can't remember how many 'mississippi's' there's supposed to be ! :lol: so i go by the car length rule. another good trick is when you are stopped behind a vehicle like at a stop sign/light, stop far enough back from the vehicle in front of you so that you can (actually) see their rear tire touching the pavement.Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 06:32 am Post Subject:
It should be 3 Mississippi's. 1 car length for every 10 MPH is a general rule that was taught at one time and is still used. The last class that I was in that was taught by law enforcement used the Mississippi's as the rule of thumb. It was explained that due to the major differences in car lengths now, who decides which car length to use. A Suburban or Ford Festiva?
However if you are behind a tractor trailer try and latch onto the Mansfield bar it saves on gas and truckers really love not being able to see you.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:08 pm Post Subject: insurance
Amoung the different 'jobs/titles, I have in the Military, one is a truck driver. I've been driving Military vehicles since I joined the Army, in 1989. A good 'rule of thumb' is if you are behind a BigRig/Military truck and trailer, you should be able to see BOTH sides mirrors at the same time. If you can't, you're driving TOO close to them. Remember: if you're driving TOO close that you can't see BOTH side mirrors, there is a GOOD chance that the truck driver can't see you, either.
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 01:28 pm Post Subject:
However if you are behind a tractor trailer try and latch onto the Mansfield bar it saves on gas and truckers really love not being able to see you.
yeah, that worked really good for the OP :wink:Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 01:38 am Post Subject:
Remember: if you're driving TOO close that you can't see BOTH side mirrors, there is a GOOD chance that the truck driver can't see you, either.
How about speeding up on the right hand side of a tractor trailer and then cutting in front of them and stopping. How does that work for ya.
Just kiddin' these are two types of claims I would always get and they drove me nuts. People just don't know how to drive around trucks. On the other hand, it kept me employed.
Add your comment