by Guest » Wed Dec 31, 2008 05:02 am
Don't lie about how the accident happened.
It sounds simple, and yes, many liability disputes are the result different perceptions of the what happened or an optimistic interpretation of vehicle code and comparative negligence.
Let me paint a picture of a typical claim in which one of the parties unambiguously MUST be lying:
X states "Z rear-ended me."
Z states "X backed into me."
There are no independent witnesses. Both parties claim soft tissue injuries. Both insurance companies side with their insured and deny the opposition's claim. Because of the lack of independent evidence, both companies forfeit their subrogation rights. Each party pays his own deductible and because neither company accepted liability, neither person was compensated for pain and suffering.
The person who lied cost the person they hit the amount of their deductible (on average, this is $500), physical pain, stress and time lost in dealing with an accident.
What difference is there between the above scenario and walking up to someone, pushing them to the ground and stealing $500 from their wallet?
What does the liar gain? People typically lie because they don't want their premiums to increase. The liar may save himself a few thousand dollars over the next few years, while he may have been responsible for much more money in property damage and injury.
Any liars out there want to volunteer justification?
It sounds simple, and yes, many liability disputes are the result different perceptions of the what happened or an optimistic interpretation of vehicle code and comparative negligence.
Let me paint a picture of a typical claim in which one of the parties unambiguously MUST be lying:
X states "Z rear-ended me."
Z states "X backed into me."
There are no independent witnesses. Both parties claim soft tissue injuries. Both insurance companies side with their insured and deny the opposition's claim. Because of the lack of independent evidence, both companies forfeit their subrogation rights. Each party pays his own deductible and because neither company accepted liability, neither person was compensated for pain and suffering.
The person who lied cost the person they hit the amount of their deductible (on average, this is $500), physical pain, stress and time lost in dealing with an accident.
What difference is there between the above scenario and walking up to someone, pushing them to the ground and stealing $500 from their wallet?
What does the liar gain? People typically lie because they don't want their premiums to increase. The liar may save himself a few thousand dollars over the next few years, while he may have been responsible for much more money in property damage and injury.
Any liars out there want to volunteer justification?
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 08:20 am Post Subject:
So the winner is the liar.
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:09 am Post Subject:
Any liars out there want to volunteer justification?
Come on now suga' you know that ain't happen' :wink:I've noticed (and remarked) an alarming trend in this in the past nine months or so (since the economy really tanked I assume)...I used to get maybe a few a month, with some type of lie, mostly 'it wasn't like that before the wreck! i know i only have a small scratch on my rear bumper cover, but really it did cause my wind shield to crack' :roll: to now, it is more than 50% of the claims I handle there is 'something'...someone trying to get more than they have coming....I'll never understand how truely ''good folks'' find no shame in lying to an insurance company...it's remarkable...
Crazed,
So the winner is the liar.
Only momentarily and occasionally...I don't think anyone 'gets away with' things like this for long...Karma is a bi--h, and she will kick your butt when you least expect it.. :lol:
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:47 am Post Subject:
I'll never understand how truely ''good folks'' find no shame in lying to an insurance company...it's remarkable...
Yes, I'd also believe them to be short-term gainers...and in the long run they'd have only themselves to be blamed. We'd always come across a few of them with carriers denying a renewal. These are people who'd end up paying huge premiums for a small coverage at last!
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 01:46 pm Post Subject:
.
.
.
anonymousadjuster,
You state:
"" X states "Z rear-ended me."
Z states "X backed into me."
There are no independent witnesses. Both parties claim soft tissue injuries. Both insurance companies side with their insured and deny the opposition's claim. Because of the lack of independent evidence, both companies forfeit their subrogation rights. Each party pays his own deductible and because neither company accepted liability, neither person was compensated for pain and suffering. ""
If I'm reading this correctly... at least the insurer's saved a few bucks.
How was the Honest consumer in this scenario made Whole?? [they had no control over the Liars statement]
FK
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 02:17 pm Post Subject:
The way I look at it is one day these liars will get caught and their word will mean nothing. What really gets me is when they actually get away with it. I see it all the time and its disgusting. Anonymous is correct..it is like throwing them down and stealing $500 right out of their pocket.
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 06:23 pm Post Subject:
You all seem to be missing the point...! in anonymousadjuster's scenario the big loser is the Honest Claimant. The liar (at fault party) would have had to pay a deductible anyway. And on top of that... The Big Winner is the insurance companies because they don't pay possibly a Hundred Grand worth of "pain and suffering" for either one.
Tell me -- fireyone, --
How will you feel about your Insurer after paying the Higher "Full Tort" premiums for ten years or so, and you tell the Truth about your accident yet your insurer denies your much needed "pain and suffering" claim because the other driver lied about the accident. As anonymousadjuster implies in his/her scenario?? Re-Paste below
=====================================
X states "Z rear-ended me."
Z states "X backed into me."
There are no independent witnesses. Both parties claim soft tissue injuries. Both insurance companies side with their insured and deny the opposition's claim. Because of the lack of independent evidence, both companies forfeit their subrogation rights. Each party pays his own deductible and because neither company accepted liability, neither person was compensated for pain and suffering.
======================
If I'm reading this correctly... at least the insurer's saved a few bucks.
How was the Honest consumer in this scenario made Whole?? [they had no control over the Liars statement]
FK
Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2008 09:27 pm Post Subject:
your insurer denies your much needed "pain and suffering" claim because the other driver lied about the accident
No fred you got it wrong, it would not be YOUR insurer it is the 'at fault lying claimants' insurance company that would be denying pain and suffering under their insured's bi coverage...you cannot collect liability from yourself...the opposite is also true. say you are the liar, your company denies the poor innocent claimant..these are terrible claims to handle...but fred, if you are my insured in this scenerio, and you come to me and say, 'lori, he rearended me' and he say's 'no way fred back right up on me'....you don't want me to belive him right? of course not the benefit of the doubt goes to my insured if all else is equal...I really don't see your gripe, ''your insurer'' did exactly what they have promised to do.Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 06:25 am Post Subject: re:
Lori, I believe because this forum is anonymous we can have some honest liars confess.
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 08:32 am Post Subject:
I'd go with FK this time, IMO the greatest gainer in this situation is the at-fault driver's insurer. Lori, do you think that the insurer might have an interest in not investigating the situation more thoroughly?
I also have another question, what are the chances of the above situation to happen that the responsible party can walk away without paying the damages just by twisting the story? Ain't the claim adjusters responsible for finding out the truth?
~Jeremy
Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 09:54 am Post Subject: reply to Jeremy
The point of this hypothetical is not to see who gains the most. But, to go along with that, in this simplistic version, let's say the insurance company saves $10,000 by not paying out any liability. The at-fault liar saves $2,500 in not having his premiums increased. The insurance company's net saving is then $7,500 ($10,000 - $2,500). The $2,500 likely represents a greater percentage of the liar's assets than $7,500 would of the insurance company's assets. That's not the only measure of "greatest gain," but if following the simplistic analysis the liar gains the most, or to rephrase, loses the least.
What are the chances a liar can walk away without paying the damages?
Without the support of independent evidence (ie. witnesses, video footage), the liar's insurance company will likely support the lie (keep in mind, the adjuster doesn't know who the liar is). Even in claims in which the adjuster may suspect his insured is lying, he is likely to side with him unless the facts can be convincingly proven otherwise.
In the example from the original post, the damages resulting from backing versus rear-ending are pretty much identical (in a low impact collision.
Are the claims adjusters responsible for finding out the truth? Adjusters to their job as much as taking statements and inspecting scenes and vehicles allows. When there's no independent evidence, nearly every accident could be twisted by the liar into a not at fault accident.
Add your comment