by Clintonsparks » Wed May 23, 2012 10:33 pm
A car rolled slowly across a parking lot space because the e brake gave way. The rolling car was stopped by the car directly infront of it, and was pushed against it by the law of gravity and slope of the hill, pushing in the bumper of the stationary car.
There was a car next to the car that stopped the rolling vehicle (call it car 2). When all parties were present, the rolling vehicle's bumper was just inches away from car 2. There was no dent, but a small scratch that the owner of car 2 claims wasn't there before. A scratch smaller than other scratches car 2 had on other parts of their bumper.
Once the rolling vehicle was taken off the vehicle that stopped it, there was no paint damage to either vehicle, and the bumper damage was unoticeable to eyes, only touch could tell the soft bumper has a bump cause by the impact.
Does car 2 have a case with their insurance company that the rolling vehicle hit and scratched it even though when pictures were taken, the rolling vehicle was inches away?
There was a car next to the car that stopped the rolling vehicle (call it car 2). When all parties were present, the rolling vehicle's bumper was just inches away from car 2. There was no dent, but a small scratch that the owner of car 2 claims wasn't there before. A scratch smaller than other scratches car 2 had on other parts of their bumper.
Once the rolling vehicle was taken off the vehicle that stopped it, there was no paint damage to either vehicle, and the bumper damage was unoticeable to eyes, only touch could tell the soft bumper has a bump cause by the impact.
Does car 2 have a case with their insurance company that the rolling vehicle hit and scratched it even though when pictures were taken, the rolling vehicle was inches away?
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 12:55 am Post Subject:
Let's just cut the chase.... did the rolling car cause the damage to car 2? The question is a "simple" as that. If you want to know the absolute answer your your post... answer the question above.
To add a little to that... is it likely that the rolling car caused the damage? The degree of this likelihood can also make a difference.
Perhaps 10 people would answer that question in 10 different ways but then again, those 10 opinions don't matter.
There are too many details missing from this post to give a better answer.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 01:30 am Post Subject:
Well here's the straight forward facts that can be obtained by the evidence available to an investigator:
-the rolling car travelled 10 feet before it hit the car directly infront of it.
- the max rolling speed couldn't have been more than 3 km/hr based on the degree of the hill.
- when the car directly infront stopped the roll, it's bumper was pushed in half an inch
- car 2 was 2 inches away from the rolling vehicle at this instance and stayed that way.
-pictures were taken of that instance only.
- when the rolling car reversed off that car, the bumper pushed itself back out, and was virtually unscathed, no dents, punctures, or scratches whatsoever
- the owner of the directly hit vehicle didn't claim, because there is zero damage.
-that same owner does not believe car 2 was hit, and that the scratch on it was not caused by the incident, and will act as a witness.
I'm asking this question to professionals in the insurance field or anyone who has been in a similar situation; where people may have or have not been involved in an accident and try to make a claim against you, with no concrete evidence you hit them. I know hearsay doesn't work in the criminal court but would it in the insurance companies
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 01:39 am Post Subject:
It's 100% up to your adjuster. You, and others don't think the scratch was caused in the accident. It appears that the scratched car _was_ struck (??). The question is, will _you_ adjuster feel that the car was scratched in this accident. Or another test... if that person takes you to court can he/she convince a judge that his/her car was scratched in this accident. It's a judgement call.
How you present this to your adjuster will probably make a difference. If you seem like you don't care if it's paid or not or are not clear on your thoughts about the damages then your adjuster _might_ pay the claim. If you told the adjuster that you have no doubt that it was prior damage and that liability should be denied, no questions asked... then the adjuster might be more willing to deny the claim.
If it were me... I'd probably deny the claim and only consider paying it if the person filed suit.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 03:01 am Post Subject:
Would calling my insurance broker and telling them what happened, and to deny if there is a claim, affect my insurance rate?
I would admit i did make contact with the other vehicle (which i did) but also remind them he did not make a claim because there was no damage. Do premiums go up in a case like this where there is no claim, just a close call?
Cheers
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 04:20 am Post Subject:
Would calling my insurance broker and telling them what happened, and to deny if there is a claim, affect my insurance rate?
You call the adjuster, not the broker. Insurance companies rates rates based on fault. Either way, you are at fault in this loss.
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 02:46 pm Post Subject:
I know i am at fault. But my fault caused no damage tobthe one vehicle, so no claim will be made by that person who is being honest.
But the people in the other car that say i made contact with theirs, and caused a scratch that i most likely did not.
What i'm asking is if i should call my insurance company/adjuster to explain the situation that these people may try to claim for something i didn't do, so they are ready to deny their claim. Or would it cause my premium to be more expensive if they know i made contact with another vehicle even though there is no damage and no claim?
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 03:06 pm Post Subject:
Or should i just wait until they try to make a claim, but how will i know if they did? Would it automatically go through?
Posted: Thu May 24, 2012 04:01 pm Post Subject:
Your policy requires you to report all accidents. With that said, the Interstate speed limit is typically 65mph. No one drives 65mph.
In this type of situation it should nto make any difference if you report the claim or not as the carrier should not be harmed if it's reported at a later date. I'd recommend not reporting it and seeing if the other person reports the loss. It's a litmus test... if the other person really feels that the accident caused the damage, they will call. If they are just trying to get some money for a prior situation, than they might not call. If they report the claim you simply tell your carrier that you did not report a claim as there was no damage. You specifically tell the adjuster that there was no way the 1st car hit the 2nd. Keep in mind, a lot of people _claim_ they are not at fault even when it's obvious that they are. You want to remain calm and reasonable. Admit to what you did. Point out the facts... that the scratch is not consistent with the impact and that the other owner thought this as well. You may want to let the adjuster know that you understand it's their call but that you feel very strongly that the 1st car did not caused the scratch on the second.
If the 1st car hit the 2nd in the same location as the scratch, your carrier may pay the claim as it's not a big leap to convince a judge that it happened in this accident. Personally, I would probably deny the claim and see if the other person wants to file in small claims court. If their field, I'd either pay the claim or ask you to attend and let the chips fall were they may. Nothing wrong with an insurance company having a judge make a legal decision on the matter. Worse situation that happens is that court fees (around $100) are added into the amount owed.
Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 03:38 pm Post Subject:
Thank you very much. Great advice. A lot better than where i posted elsewhere. It's very relieving to hear that professional advice. Thanks again.
Add your comment