by dawnsden » Mon Jun 21, 2010 08:52 pm
I was involved in an accident at a 4 way intersection w/stop signs on each corner. I stopped completely, proceeded through the intersection after making sure it was clear 1/2 way throught the intersection a car waa approaching the stop sign on the right of me, I thought nothing of it since I was almost through the intersection until he did not stop at all and hit my back door. His insurance company is only taking 80% of the responsibility, even though he was driving on a suspended license had no witness blew the stop sign & appoligized for hitting me. I had 4 people in my car who all stated the same and had an accident report. What should I do now...I want to fight it, I was 100% his fault.
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:10 pm Post Subject:
You can refuse their offer and turn the claim into your insurance company, if you have collision coverage.
You can file a complaint with your state's Insurance Regulator (usually the Dept of Insurance), citing "unfair claims practices" as the basis for your complaint.
However, before you do that, make one more phone call to the at-fault party's insurance company's claims department. As to speak to the highest available supervisor/manager -- do not talk to voicemail. If you get sent to voicemail, call back and demand to speak to a live person at the highest level. Do this repeatedly if necessary. Then let that person know how many times it took to get to them and if they understand the words "unfair claims practices" and "complaint to the Department of Insurance".
You should get much better attention to your matter as a result. No insurance company wants to invite this sort of extra attention from the Regulator.
But if you don't get the action you feel you deserve, the immediately turn it over to the Dept of Insurance. Their services will cost you nothing, and will prompt the insurer to do the "right thing" in most cases.
Your last resort is to get the estimates for repairs from two or three shops, march down to small claims court, and sue the at-fault party. The judge will decide what it's worth. You can base your suit on any of the estimates you obtain, not simply the lowest one. Many people choose the one in the middle out of a sense of "fair play", but you are free to choose the highest one. The only hassle will be collecting on the judgment.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 12:59 am Post Subject:
IMHO, mentioning unfair claims practices and the DOI is just going to shut down anyone at the insurance company. A description in liability has nothing to do with either of these things (no where in any states Fair Claims Practice guidelines will it mention liability percentages) and the DOI does not enforce this aspect of the claim. There are just to many people that threaten adjusters with this when it does not apply that it won't help.
I'd recommend filing under your own collision coverage as you mentioned. If you don't have collision you can see if the other carrier will increase their offer in the 90-100% range. They probably won't go to 100% but if you get them close enough... and more then 80%... you may want to settle.
Other then that I'd recommend filing against the owner and/or driver in small claims court. Small claims court should allow you to mention this persons past which may not be relevant but will cause the judge to question the other person's statement. I'd fill out the paperwork and before filing it with the court I'd mail it to their insured and the other person's carrier. Let them know you'd be seeking 100% payment plus all expenses and see what happens. If they don't move, you can always have the other person served and go to court.
I think you have a good case, given the point of impact being your rear door. I always remind people that there are two sides to every story. I'm sure the other person is saying that he stopped and you did not and this is why you were able to make it into the intersection in front of him. Regardless, that version is _tough_ sell.
If you obtain a judgement, the other carrier will need to pay that as it in their contract with their insured (they pay for what their insured is liable for... up to the policy limits).
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 01:05 am Post Subject: Re: car accident
Thank you for your advice. I have great car insurance. Its unfortunate that he does not. His insurance carrier said its his word against mine. He 1st stated that he wasn't sure I stopped because a truck was blocking his view, then he stated I didn't stop at all both are lies. They also told me the accident report tells them nothing and it doesn't mean anything that his license was suspended..so I guess its okay to drive on a suspended license and run stop signs because you'll only be 80% at fault...maybe next time he'll kill someone its so unfair.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 01:13 am Post Subject:
I've not heard the other person's statement but personally, I'd probably pay this at 100% and call it a day. This is based on the point of impacts and I'd also consider that the other person is obviously not the most trusting person. One... you need to do a lot wrong in order to get a suspended license and two... he obviously is not above breaking the law in driving when he knows his license is suspended. Trust me... a judge is going to _hate_ this guy. While the suspended license does not have anything to do with liability it _does_ go to the person's credibility.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 01:29 am Post Subject:
Fair Claims Settlement Practices Act defines things such as "Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by the insureds, when the insureds have made claims for amounts reasonably similar to
the amounts ultimately recovered," and "Attempting to settle a claim by an insured for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application."
The latter has been extended in practice to general advertising (as in an insurer's "We get you back to where you were" or "You're in good hands" advertising slogans and commercials to the public).
True, there is no mention of "percentages" when it comes to liability, but the point of pressing an unfair claims practices claim is that if the insured was not supposed to be driving (i.e., license was suspended) and was following that ban, the accident would never have happened (at least not with this at-fault insured), therefore the at fault party should be considered 100% at fault. Isn't that what a "reasonable person" would believe?
On the other hand, coverage may not be in force in such circumstances as an insured driving when the privilege has been taken away. But apparently that is not the case in the policy at issue, since the insurer is initially offering 80% liability.
I still believe using the three magic words: "Unfair Claims Practices" is a sound tactic. As is the complaint to the DOI if it doesn't have the appropriate effect.
As for Small Claims Court, which would be the ultimate venue as long as damages do not exceed the maximum suit amount allowed, tcope is right, the rules of evidence are suspended, and evidence of the other party's license suspension, as well as the testimony of your several witnesses against his, could easily persuade the judge that he is 100% at fault. Hopefully, if it comes to that, his property damage coverage is sufficient to cover the loss.
Just don't wimp out and fail to pursue the claim one way or another. And don't accept 80% if you don't believe it's fair, because once you accept it, you can't go back for more.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 01:40 am Post Subject:
For one, I doubt _any_ states Fair Claims codes contain wording that means what you mentioned but on top of that:
brought by the insureds
we are not talking about an insured.
Think about it... every insurance company is entitled to their liability decision... just as every 3rd party claimant is.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 01:44 am Post Subject: Re: car accident
Again thank you for all your help. My daughter was in the back seat as well as my friends daughter. I would feel horrible if I was at fault and would want my insurance company to pay for damages I caused to someone else some people just don't have a conscience!
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 02:07 pm Post Subject:
For one, I doubt _any_ states Fair Claims codes contain wording that means what you mentioned
You are right the do not, because this would not cover the definition of "unfair".
I still believe using the three magic words: "Unfair Claims Practices" is a sound tactic. As is the complaint to the DOI if it doesn't have the appropriate effect.
That's good that you do. Unfortuneatley, the public uses it as threat or when things do not go their way. I have had insured's and claimants threaten to file claims for not returning their phone calls (in most cases they are repped and I have recieved notification) don't know what's in their polices ett, etc. I recently attended a meeting with the Missouri DOI that stated over 60% of claims against an insurer, the complaint is for unfair circumstances when there is none. Most people do not know the factors of a true unfair situation.
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 03:55 pm Post Subject: insurance
Sounds like the driver, of the other car, ALREADY changed his story a few times. THAT, ALONE, should give people 'reasonable doubt' about what happened. (Not an expert here..) but, I would get statements from everyone who saw it. I know, OP, you said you had passengers in the car. Also....you said the other driver's DL was suspended?,,gosh!!
Add your comment