Fighting insurance ruling

[riander5]

Hey All,

Just wondering if anyone had any advice where to take this issue as the insurance company is giving me nothing.

First I will state I was the rear driver in a rear end collision, which I know usually is 100% driver fault.

Unfortunately this mysterious 'rule' my insurer is quoting to me hasnt been produced in writing so the best I can find is ICBC's descriptions - http://www.icbcclaiminfo.com/node/27

Clif notes of accident - Following at a safe distance, was in far right lane of dual merge lanes on the nose hill drive offramp heading onto southbound crowchild, lady in front slammed on brakes because she shifted her auto tranny car into neutral and started redlining it - causing her to panic.

Police officer at scene put her in #1 position on accident report which he told me is who he deems at fault (insurer told me this has no weight anyways...), I wasnt cited for any violations, and my insurer decided I was 100% at fault before even hearing the story (I expected this).

I know we arent in BC, but I havent had any rules/laws of collisions provided to me by the insurer, hence why I am referencing the next best thing. I'm just curious any ideas of trying to overturn the ruling to save myself the deductible and insurance premium hike due to anothers poor driving.

Anyways any help / advice would be appreciated!

I also posted a poll for those wanting to weigh in without posting!

[ercchry]

you are 100% at fault, the car positions dont mean shit, cops dont place blame, just layout the facts as best they can. if you were actually following at a safe distance you would have seen her braking and would have stopped.

its also in your insurance company's best interest if you are NOT at fault... so yeah, they arnt going to lie to you about it

[Kloubek]

So how do you figure you were following at a safe distance? A "safe distance" means far enough away to be able to perform an evasive maneuver if required. You clearly were not.

I know situations like this suck because it was clearly someone else's stupid move which ultimately caused the situation. However, if you HAD been far enough away, you could have and would have stopped or swerved around the obstacle.

[FraserB]

Even if they reduce it to 50/50 (they won't), it would still count as an at fault claim on your record and carry the increase in payments/grid rating reduction.

[riander5]

My figuring a safe distance - We were in the merge lane meaning I was ~ 2 cars behind the car I was going to merge behind, he was ~2 behind her.

I estimated 5-6 car lengths which I agree normally should be enough time to stop. Unfortunately for me this was on a -5 degree day in late november so the roads were a bit slick, and I think I totally could have stopped in time on a dry road day. Was no where near tailgating, but when taking into account typical merging, accelerating to go from 20 - 80 km/h on crowchild, and the slick roads I just couldnt stop.

Had we been cruising along at 50 on a regular road I dont think i would have had a problem. Shoulder checking and accelarating and all of the sudden stopping worked against me in this case though!

Reading through some of the cases in the ICBC (again I know we arent in BC but its my only reference) help me justify my 'not at fault' rear ending position.

[snowcat]

What happened to that girl with the bmw that rear ended the honda when he just slammed on his brakes for apparently no reason?

I think the quote in my sig is from that thraed.

[FraserB]

You admit that conditions were bad and were following as if the conditions were good, so you were not following safely. Unless she reversed into you, you are 100% at fault here. What if she had slammed on her brakes because there was child in front of her, would you try to blame the kid?

Also, stop wasting your time with ICBC unless Alberta insurance companies now use that set of rules to adjudicate claims.

[cet]

It doesn't matter what you're doing, if you can't stop quick enough, regardles of the road conditions, you're too close.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by snowcat
What happened to that girl with the bmw that rear ended the honda when he just slammed on his brakes for apparently no reason?

I think the quote in my sig is from that thraed.

They had a dashcam video and a clear attempt to de-fraud. Very different situation.

[riander5]

Originally posted by snowcat
What happened to that girl with the bmw that rear ended the honda when he just slammed on his brakes for apparently no reason?

I think the quote in my sig is from that thraed.

Haha, not familiar with that thread, but I do have full coverage and my deductible isnt even that bad. Just hate getting screwed over for something that I honestly feel was totally not my fault!

[speedog]

Originally posted by riander5
My figuring a safe distance - We were in the merge lane meaning I was ~ 2 cars behind the car I was going to merge behind, he was ~2 behind her.

I estimated 5-6 car lengths which I agree normally should be enough time to stop. Unfortunately for me this was on a -5 degree day in late november so the roads were a bit slick, and I think I totally could have stopped in time on a dry road day. Was no where near tailgating, but when taking into account typical merging, accelerating to go from 20 - 80 km/h on crowchild, and the slick roads I just couldnt stop.

Had we been cruising along at 50 on a regular road I dont think i would have had a problem. Shoulder checking and accelarating and all of the sudden stopping worked against me in this case though!

Reading through some of the cases in the ICBC (again I know we arent in BC but its my only reference) help me justify my 'not at fault' rear ending position.

So is the version you related to ICBC or was it something else?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by speedog


So is the version you related to ICBC or was it something else?

He's in Calgary. He is trying to use ICBC documents to argue a case with Alberta insurance companies.

[Tik-Tok]

Sorry to say OP, if you were truly at a safe distance, for the road conditions, you wouldn't have hit her. Even if you could have stopped in time on a dry summers day... the fact is, it wasn't, and you didn't.

[speedog]

Originally posted by FraserB
He's in Calgary. He is trying to use ICBC documents to argue a case with Alberta insurance companies.

WTF for?

Different province, different rules, no?

[ercchry]

such a typical calgary attitude though... "its not my fault, its someone else's"

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by ercchry
such a typical calgary attitude though... "its not my fault, its someone else's"

I don't think that's just Calgary though. It's pretty much a North American thing (possibly world wide, but I'm not a world traveler, so I don't know)

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by riander5


Haha, not familiar with that thread, but I do have full coverage and my deductible isnt even that bad. Just hate getting screwed over for something that I honestly feel was totally not my fault!

...but it WAS your fault. Read what you already told us... you were following a safe distance, in your opinion, IF the road conditions were perfect. Which, by your own admission, the roads were not. Therefore, you were travelling too close - and the fact this even happened is proof of that, or you would not have hit her.

Why is it so difficult for people to admit personal responsibility these days? So frustrating....

[Env-Consultant]

I agree, you're totally at fault on this one; however, I definitely feel for you a bit here.

This may have not been the case, but I absolutely hate people who merge at 20 km/hr onto an 80+ km/hr roadway - half the time I come down the on-ramp, I end up 2 car lengths behind some tard who is seemingly hoping to get smoked by the traffic flowing 60+ km/hr faster than they are. Thinking of it now, I know a lot of the times in the past, given my speed, their speed, and the fact I'm looking half backwards trying to merge into flowing traffic, if the person in front of me absolutely slammed on their brakes, I would've slammed into them.

This thread is actually a good reminder - if I see that typical YYC bullshit going on in front of me on the on-ramp when I'm at the top, I'm going to take it nice and slow to create a huge gap between me and said bullshit creator, then hammer on it at the bottom of the ramp and merge in with traffic.

It sounds ridiculous, but this guy's post probably saved me from an accident, eventually anyways.

[infamous]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant
I agree, you're totally at fault on this one; however, I definitely feel for you a bit here.

This may have not been the case, but I absolutely hate people who merge at 20 km/hr onto an 80+ km/hr roadway - half the time I come down the on-ramp, I end up 2 car lengths behind some tard who is seemingly hoping to get smoked by the traffic flowing 60+ km/hr faster than they are. Thinking of it now, I know a lot of the times in the past, given my speed, their speed, and the fact I'm looking half backwards trying to merge into flowing traffic, if the person in front of me absolutely slammed on their brakes, I would've slammed into them.

This thread is actually a good reminder - if I see that typical YYC bullshit going on in front of me on the on-ramp when I'm at the top, I'm going to take it nice and slow to create a huge gap between me and said bullshit creator, then hammer on it at the bottom of the ramp and merge in with traffic.

It sounds ridiculous, but this guy's post probably saved me from an accident, eventually anyways.

agreed....had a buddy of mine who rear ended a guy turning off of southbound blackfoot onto westbound southland. buddy in front slammed on his brakes for no reason (no cars coming or anything) in the merge lane when my buddy went to shoulder check. he was at fault, even though it wasn't his fault......

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by riander5

I honestly feel was totally not my fault!