by Guest » Wed Jul 25, 2012 06:56 pm
I filed a claim against someone who clearly was at fault by taking a wide left turn in his Ford truck and hitting the side of my car that was in the left turn lane to his right. It was on a street in San Francisco that turns into 3 lane turns onto a one way street. I was in the middle lane and he was on my left. After about 5 - 10 minutes of driving behind him, he finally pulls over and apologizes. He says he's out here visiting a friend and is not familiar with the area (He had a Michigan license plate.) We have a calm conversion about where we were going and where we were coming from.
When we looked at the damage on my car, it only looked like a few minor scratches since it was fairly dark. His car was fine. Considering how hard he hit me, I was skeptical that there would only be scratches so I ask for his insurance card just in case. He lets me take a picture on my phone. I tell him that if it's most likely just scratches, I'll just take care of it myself. However, turns out there was a dent on the body above the front tire that wasn't visible at the time. I noticed it later when we were in better light.
His insurance, State Farm, tells me that he doesn't know who was at fault, basically denying it now. Because I have no independent witnesses (my girlfriend was with me but that doesn't count), I will most likely not get the claim. Apparently because he is a State Farm customer, they are suppose to stand by anything that he says regardless of what I said actually happened.
I tell the lady at State Farm that he basically admitted fault to me at the time of the accident which is why he said sorry. The whole conversion that we had was based on the understanding that he was at fault from what he said and the way he acted. Why else would I have his car insurance information? He didn't ask for a single piece of information from me, not even a name.
There is a chance that he is denying it now even though he knows he was at fault because he initially saw that there was only scratches in the dark. So now that he gets a call from his insurance saying that there was more damage, he denies it since that's not what he remembered seeing. However if this was the case, shouldn't he have taken pictures of my car?
As for the witness thing, I was completely unaware that you needed one since this is my first accident in 12 years of driving. There were plenty of cars around that saw what happened. I even heard people react when it happened. But when I think about it, they can't use not having a witness against me because he didn't pull over right away. He drove at least 8 - 10 blocks away from where the accident happened. I thought he didn't even know it happened which was why I had to chase after him and high beam him. It is unrealistic to expect there to be a witness if he drove that far away. Chances are, no one is going to follow that far for just a minor accident. At the same time, there was no safe way for me to get a witness while I'm following him at the same time.
It could be argued that he was just looking for a safe place to pull over. The only street that had the most cars at the time was the street that he hit me on. All the turns and streets he went on had plenty of spots he could have just pulled over at.
The damage is relatively minor but I actually just got the car from my mom no more than a few weeks when this happened. Although it'd be great to get money to fix the damage that I didn't do, I'm more concerned with making sure this person owns up to his responsibilities. It pisses me off that this guy knew he was at fault but now weasel his way from any responsibility just because his insurance will disregard my story and believe anything that he says. If any one can offer and help or advice, that would be very much appreciated.
When we looked at the damage on my car, it only looked like a few minor scratches since it was fairly dark. His car was fine. Considering how hard he hit me, I was skeptical that there would only be scratches so I ask for his insurance card just in case. He lets me take a picture on my phone. I tell him that if it's most likely just scratches, I'll just take care of it myself. However, turns out there was a dent on the body above the front tire that wasn't visible at the time. I noticed it later when we were in better light.
His insurance, State Farm, tells me that he doesn't know who was at fault, basically denying it now. Because I have no independent witnesses (my girlfriend was with me but that doesn't count), I will most likely not get the claim. Apparently because he is a State Farm customer, they are suppose to stand by anything that he says regardless of what I said actually happened.
I tell the lady at State Farm that he basically admitted fault to me at the time of the accident which is why he said sorry. The whole conversion that we had was based on the understanding that he was at fault from what he said and the way he acted. Why else would I have his car insurance information? He didn't ask for a single piece of information from me, not even a name.
There is a chance that he is denying it now even though he knows he was at fault because he initially saw that there was only scratches in the dark. So now that he gets a call from his insurance saying that there was more damage, he denies it since that's not what he remembered seeing. However if this was the case, shouldn't he have taken pictures of my car?
As for the witness thing, I was completely unaware that you needed one since this is my first accident in 12 years of driving. There were plenty of cars around that saw what happened. I even heard people react when it happened. But when I think about it, they can't use not having a witness against me because he didn't pull over right away. He drove at least 8 - 10 blocks away from where the accident happened. I thought he didn't even know it happened which was why I had to chase after him and high beam him. It is unrealistic to expect there to be a witness if he drove that far away. Chances are, no one is going to follow that far for just a minor accident. At the same time, there was no safe way for me to get a witness while I'm following him at the same time.
It could be argued that he was just looking for a safe place to pull over. The only street that had the most cars at the time was the street that he hit me on. All the turns and streets he went on had plenty of spots he could have just pulled over at.
The damage is relatively minor but I actually just got the car from my mom no more than a few weeks when this happened. Although it'd be great to get money to fix the damage that I didn't do, I'm more concerned with making sure this person owns up to his responsibilities. It pisses me off that this guy knew he was at fault but now weasel his way from any responsibility just because his insurance will disregard my story and believe anything that he says. If any one can offer and help or advice, that would be very much appreciated.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 01:29 am Post Subject:
Why else would I have his car insurance information?
Because and accident _did_ occur and it's required by law that insurance information be exchanged. This does not mean the other person is at fault.
The other carrier will (and has) listen to your version of the accident. If one version does not add up (based on damages, location of the vehicles, etc.) then they will tend to disregard it. If all things are equal, they will side with their insured as this is required of them. By law, the duty to defend is greater then the duty to indemnify (pay the other party).
There are many times it's a "he said, she said" situation where there it's no clear who is at fault. This is why you pay for collision coverage on your own policy... so you don't need to rely on other people to have your vehicle repaired.
If you think you can convince a judge the other person is at fault (you need proof) then file against the driver in small claims court.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:29 am Post Subject:
If you think you can convince a judge the other person is at fault (you need proof) then file against the driver in small claims court.
The only problem with this is that the OP/collision is in California and, it appears, the other party is in Michigan. Small claims court doesn't work very well at all in such situations. And the value of the loss is probably not worth the expense of taking the matter to Superior Court.
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 01:23 am Post Subject:
Depending on who insures your vehicle, the resolution of your property damage claim might actually be determined in inter-company arbitration, more specifically Arbitration Forums, Inc. (“AFI”). In that forum the rules of evidence are nearly non-existent, AFI oftentimes recognizes post collision apologies as admissions of fault. Aside from that shortcoming, AFI also typically declines to determine fault when there is no independent witness nor supporting evidence. Keep in mind, although your deductible recovery might be tendered to AFI along with your carrier’s property damage subrogation claim, AFI admittedly does not have jurisdiction over your deductible. You are always free to pursue it yourself in Court where you might fare a little better, or might even obtain a default judgment if the other party can’t make the trip from Michigan.
Add your comment