Spotted: Blue celica accident, deerfoot south by barlow

[~Touge/Wangan-]

hey guys,

i was wondering if anyone saw an accident deerfoot south at approx. 2:10pm today involving a blue 2002 toyota celica, it had hit the side concrete barriers and came to a stop, my friend was in the celica when she was cut off by "a white, old junker" car, she tried to avoid being hit and skidded in the dirt before hitting the barrier....

if there are ANY witnesses that saw what happened, do me a HUGE favor and let me know, thanks!...

[beyond_ban]

Unfortunately for your friend, even if the other car is identified, she is still at fault for her own car. If she would have let the other car hit her, then it would be the other persons fault. NEVER EVER swerve off the road causing damage to your own car to avoid someone else, especially if it would have been the other cars fault.

I am afraid your friend is SOL.

[inline6turbo]

Ya sorry Tony, she's at fault whether they find the other driver or not. They could only issue the other driver with a ticket. Your friend takes the insurance hit and premiums, single car accident.

[~Touge/Wangan-]

i know this, lesson learned, i'd just like to see if there was anyone who saw the accident, just incase the insurance company starts playing stupid....

that's all....

[inline6turbo]

</3 Insurance Companies


Hope all goes well, or as best as it can

[sjaswal]

Originally posted by ~Touge/Wangan-
i know this, lesson learned, i'd just like to see if there was anyone who saw the accident, just incase the insurance company starts playing stupid....

that's all....

stupid as in "it's your fault"

[~Touge/Wangan-]

Originally posted by sjaswal


stupid as in &quot;it's your fault&quot;
no need to be an ignorant prick, insurance companies try to pull a "fast one" most of the time, the car was fully insured, there for it will be covered....

if you are only going to post negetively, you can leave now....

[Integra10]

I had a red 2002 Celica GTS until someone decided to run a stop sign and t-bone me. Damn I miss that car. I hope everything works out for your friend!

[VaN_HaMMeRSTeiN]

Originally posted by ~Touge/Wangan-

no need to be an ignorant prick, insurance companies try to pull a &quot;fast one&quot; most of the time, the car was fully insured, there for it will be covered....

if you are only going to post negetively, you can leave now....

I don't know, his post was pretty warranted. No reason to get all pissy.

[Kennyredline]

Was it a big old Caddy with two homies in it? lol

[tom_9109]

Originally posted by ~Touge/Wangan-
i know this, lesson learned, i'd just like to see if there was anyone who saw the accident, just incase the insurance company starts playing stupid....

that's all....

I wouldn't worry about it. Collision is collision regardless of if another car is involved.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by beyond_ban
Unfortunately for your friend, even if the other car is identified, she is still at fault for her own car. If she would have let the other car hit her, then it would be the other persons fault. NEVER EVER swerve off the road causing damage to your own car to avoid someone else, especially if it would have been the other cars fault.

I am afraid your friend is SOL.


Originally posted by tom_9109


I wouldn't worry about it. Collision is collision regardless of if another car is involved.

Not true and not true.

1st - If there is an unbiased witness who will give a statement saying the other guy did something extremely dangerous, the adjuster could go after them for "agony of collision"

2nd - There is a huge difference between a collision by hitting a barrier, a collision hitting another vehicle - claims are still rated as a percentage of who is at fault. If a person rear ends you, are you saying that is the same as you driving into a concrete barrier? :rolleyes: Clearly they aren't the same, the other person would be 100% at fault for that collision and you would be 0%, whereas if you hit a concrete barrier you are 100% at fault.

[tom_9109]

Originally posted by 403Gemini




Not true and not true.

1st - If there is an unbiased witness who will give a statement saying the other guy did something extremely dangerous, the adjuster could go after them for &quot;agony of collision&quot;

2nd - There is a huge difference between a collision by hitting a barrier, a collision hitting another vehicle - claims are still rated as a percentage of who is at fault. If a person rear ends you, are you saying that is the same as you driving into a concrete barrier? :rolleyes: Clearly they aren't the same, the other person would be 100% at fault for that collision and you would be 0%, whereas if you hit a concrete barrier you are 100% at fault.


I'm not saying don't worry as a collision is a collision in that sense. I'm saying that regardless of what happened their collision coverage with respond and cover the damages and the insurer will not pull a fast one or 'get stupid'.

As far as an insurer trying to recover their damages from the third party that 'may' have caused the crashed do you really think they would go through the time and expense pursuing such action given the relatively minor nature of the claim? It would definitely have to go to a trial and would be a very hard case to win. They would likely spends a fortune to possibly recover what will likely be a $5,000 - $10,000 claim?

If the car is identified (Which i doubt) I'll bet you a plate of wings at Limericks that they never try to recover the damages from that party, and if they do that insurer tells them to F off, politely of course :).

I guess the occupants could still try their own suit for injuries if there are any though.

[Speed_69]

Originally posted by 403Gemini




Not true and not true.

1st - If there is an unbiased witness who will give a statement saying the other guy did something extremely dangerous, the adjuster could go after them for &quot;agony of collision&quot;
This rarely happens, if ever. You'd have a very tough time disputing this with the third party's insurer.

Like someone said above, it's better to have let the person hit you then to swerve and hit the barrier yourself. Of course, it's instinct to try and swerve if you're a defensive driver though. It's the same thing as hitting an animal such as a deer, if you hit the deer, you're covered under your comprehensive coverage on the policy and your rates don't go up but if you swerve and hit the ditch or barrier causing damage to your vehicle, it's covered under your collision coverage which impact your insurance rates.

[black13]

Today was crazy, I saw a Smart ForTwo merge on to 16th ave while a semi probably came within inches of hitting it. All she did was a hand wave and drove off FFS.

[HondaKid]

Originally posted by black13
Today was crazy, I saw a Smart ForTwo merge on to 16th ave while a semi probably came within inches of hitting it. All she did was a hand wave and drove off FFS.

Never really could see the point of a Smart car, unless you are delivering chinese food in the core of NYC or cutting parking tickets in Hong Kong.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by tom_9109



As far as an insurer trying to recover their damages from the third party that 'may' have caused the crashed do you really think they would go through the time and expense pursuing such action given the relatively minor nature of the claim? It would definitely have to go to a trial and would be a very hard case to win. They would likely spends a fortune to possibly recover what will likely be a $5,000 - $10,000 claim?



Originally posted by Speed_69

This rarely happens, if ever. You'd have a very tough time disputing this with the third party's insurer.

Like someone said above, it's better to have let the person hit you then to swerve and hit the barrier yourself. Of course, it's instinct to try and swerve if you're a defensive driver though. It's the same thing as hitting an animal such as a deer, if you hit the deer, you're covered under your comprehensive coverage on the policy and your rates don't go up but if you swerve and hit the ditch or barrier causing damage to your vehicle, it's covered under your collision coverage which impact your insurance rates.

You guys must be newer to the forum... you're right, I don't know what I'm talking about :rolleyes: lol

edit: and yes, insurance companies do "go through the time and expense pursuing such action" , it's called subrogation. Any adjuster who isn't willing to do this, is a bad adjuster. Again you will need concrete evidence to do this, as I mentioned, a statement from an impartial witness goes A LONG way.

[Speed_69]

Originally posted by 403Gemini




You guys must be newer to the forum... you're right, I don't know what I'm talking about :rolleyes: lol

edit: and yes, insurance companies do &quot;go through the time and expense pursuing such action&quot; , it's called subrogation. Any adjuster who isn't willing to do this, is a bad adjuster. Again you will need concrete evidence to do this, as I mentioned, a statement from an impartial witness goes A LONG way.
I'm not new to the forum. I understand you're an insurance adjuster. I work in the insurance industry as well...so i guess i dont' know what i'm talking about now :rolleyes:

[Jeremiah]

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/pissing.jpg

[black13]

Originally posted by HondaKid


Never really could see the point of a Smart car, unless you are delivering chinese food in the core of NYC or cutting parking tickets in Hong Kong.

yea I don't get them either. They're not cheap, drive like shit and sound like shit yet people buy them. :dunno:

[tom_9109]

..

[tom_9109]

Industry here too, and claims to boot. Im not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying its a difficult recover and any good adjuster would likely send a demand letter and then when they refuse weigh out if its worth the expense to try to recover the $5,000 - $10,000 in damages.

Just take another read through my posts and you'll see my position.

Yes you are correct, it is recoverable. However I FEEL it is likely a cost prohibitive recovery. Spending $40,000 to recover $10,000 doesn't make sense. There a point where u have to let it go.

Do you understand with my position now that I have clarified it?

[403Gemini]

Too many of us insurance drones on this forum ;)

I'd would have still sent the demand letter and chance it that you get an adjuster who wants the path of least resistance and just accepts it (i've seen it happen more times you would think lol).

But yeah Tom, I agree in that instance it wouldn't be worth going through it.