person rear ends you...Does their insurance company have to pay to fix your car?
Total Comments: 13
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 05:15 pm Post Subject:
If the other person was liable, yes. Rear ending someone, while a good indicator, does not mean without a doubt that they were liable.
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 06:46 am Post Subject:
Okay Maddy, please elucidate the query. A detail account of the accident is required in oder to determine the liability of the driver, otherwise, as tcope has stated, there is a fair chance that the responsible driver's insurer would pay for the damages caused by its insured.
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:44 am Post Subject: insurance
From what I understand, if someone rear-ends your car, the accident is AUTOMATICALLY their fault...reguardless of the circumstances involved.
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 06:27 am Post Subject: not always at fault
car A cuts in front of car B and slams on his brakes immediately. car B is not always at fault even though he rear-ended car A.
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 09:23 am Post Subject: insurance
This similiar 'senario' happened to a friend of mine. I was a passenger in her car. She's a REALLY good driver. A car was came over two FULL lanes, on the Interstate and went right in front of my friend. She had to slam on her brakes to try and NOT rear-end him. Yep...that happened anyway. Her Insurance company said it was automatically her fault because she rear-ended someone. This was in the state of PA.
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 04:56 am Post Subject:
maddy, before we can determine if their insurance company should pay, you should let us know more details of the accident. was the driver at fault? how did the accident happen? although highly likely that the driver's insurance company would have to pay, i disagree with SD that the person who rear-ended you is always automatically at fault. i know some exceptions, but of course, those cases are rare.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:14 am Post Subject: insurance
i disagree with SD that the person who rear-ended you is always automatically at fault.
This was the information that was told to me by 'my' Insurance company, anyway.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:40 am Post Subject:
Being hit in the rearend is not a slam dunk claim for the 'rear-end ee', most of the time, yep, but there are occuasions, anoy. adjuster pointed out...hit on one...here's another...car in front has no break light (and can be proven so)...
What or How EXACTLY were you rearended,and what does the other company say?
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:47 am Post Subject:
The way I understand it is ···· the person who rear-ended you is automatically assumed to be at fault, unless they can Prove Otherwise.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) :)
FK,
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:58 am Post Subject:
In most cases but I think every adjuster could testify to there being the exception..one that pops into mind.#1 is rearended by #2 causing #1 to hit the rear of #3..so 1 rear ended 3 but they are not liable..#2 is...see there's just alot of variables and as i said, it's not ALWAYS a slam dunk..(most of the time but not always :wink: )
Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 05:15 pm Post Subject:
If the other person was liable, yes. Rear ending someone, while a good indicator, does not mean without a doubt that they were liable.
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 06:46 am Post Subject:
Okay Maddy, please elucidate the query. A detail account of the accident is required in oder to determine the liability of the driver, otherwise, as tcope has stated, there is a fair chance that the responsible driver's insurer would pay for the damages caused by its insured.
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:44 am Post Subject: insurance
From what I understand, if someone rear-ends your car, the accident is AUTOMATICALLY their fault...reguardless of the circumstances involved.
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 06:27 am Post Subject: not always at fault
car A cuts in front of car B and slams on his brakes immediately. car B is not always at fault even though he rear-ended car A.
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 09:23 am Post Subject: insurance
This similiar 'senario' happened to a friend of mine. I was a passenger in her car. She's a REALLY good driver. A car was came over two FULL lanes, on the Interstate and went right in front of my friend. She had to slam on her brakes to try and NOT rear-end him. Yep...that happened anyway. Her Insurance company said it was automatically her fault because she rear-ended someone. This was in the state of PA.
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 04:56 am Post Subject:
maddy, before we can determine if their insurance company should pay, you should let us know more details of the accident. was the driver at fault? how did the accident happen? although highly likely that the driver's insurance company would have to pay, i disagree with SD that the person who rear-ended you is always automatically at fault. i know some exceptions, but of course, those cases are rare.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:14 am Post Subject: insurance
i disagree with SD that the person who rear-ended you is always automatically at fault.
This was the information that was told to me by 'my' Insurance company, anyway.Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:40 am Post Subject:
Being hit in the rearend is not a slam dunk claim for the 'rear-end ee', most of the time, yep, but there are occuasions, anoy. adjuster pointed out...hit on one...here's another...car in front has no break light (and can be proven so)...
What or How EXACTLY were you rearended,and what does the other company say?
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:47 am Post Subject:
The way I understand it is ···· the person who rear-ended you is automatically assumed to be at fault, unless they can Prove Otherwise.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) :)
FK,
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:58 am Post Subject:
In most cases but I think every adjuster could testify to there being the exception..one that pops into mind.#1 is rearended by #2 causing #1 to hit the rear of #3..so 1 rear ended 3 but they are not liable..#2 is...see there's just alot of variables and as i said, it's not ALWAYS a slam dunk..(most of the time but not always :wink: )
Add your comment