Unfair 50-50 Car Insurance Claim Threat

[migzz]

I had a car accident last January 12, 2005. It all happened in a T-Intersection between 87 Avenue Exit of West Edmonton Mall and 178 Street. I had the flashing green left turn light so I began to enter and was slowly turning left. Suddenly, a car ran a red light and hit me at the LEFT driver side door and LEFT front fender. I was really shocked , this was my first car accident, clearly not my fault because it is my road right-of-way already because of the flashing green left turn light. Yup, in ALL my experiences worldwide as a driver, this is my first car accident/collission. My car cannot be driveable anymore after the accident occured.

Nobody had even stopped and bothered to offer help/assistance or even stand as a witness . Life really became harder when I began to communicate to the guy that hit me, I was surprised to the fact that he was not able to speak good English , I had to use my hands and act out trying to explain to him, still in a calmy manner though, that he ran a red light, asked him if he has an insurance pink card, his drivers license and details. Both of us had, and later a friend of his arrived as an interpreter.

Later, one constable came and asked each one of what happened and made each one of us sign a collission statement. Also, later, another constable came and took over for the first one.

The bitter parts of this incident/accident, are as follows:

1. I had a flashing LEFT turn green light, the road is clearly should have been given for me to pass. The other guy was really stupid enough to ran a red light and hit me.

2. There were no witnesses to this incident. This is the most bitter part of this whole thing and really made my life miserable right now. The other guy is also claiming that he had a GREEN LIGHT!!! Who wants to bother in owning the blame? His insurance company is threatening a possible 50-50 claim, which is the most unfair part for me because I never did anything wrong, I followed/obeyed the traffic light signal intended for me and some stupid guy ran a red light and hit me. My insurance company will be paying half the cost of the damage of my car and my premium will rise sky high if 50-50 will really be the unfair decision/finding of the other guy's insurance company. There is really NO JUSTICE for me!!!

3. My car insurance is only Third Party Liability . That means, I dont have a collision/damage coverage for my own car. And I have to face and deal all these problems by myself, with no help from my own insurance company. Again, it is really painful and a tiresome process for me because I have to persuade and follow-up my claim to the other guys insurance company. Let this be a lesson/an advice for you people out there who also has PLP-Third Part Liability to consider FULL COVERAGE as the BEST OPTION to have. The other guys insurance company is really giving me one HELL of a time!!!!

4. I had to quit my job in W.Edmonton Mall because I have no more car and my left arm/shoulder injury, until now is still bothering me.

5. I called a couple of injury lawyers, and because there was no serious CRACK or BROKEN BONE, all of them declined to take my case, adding it is gonna be expensive for me. And yes, it really is.

Best Chance For Me Adviced From A Friend To Win 100%:

1. Police Report. Talking to the Constable if he had issued a ticket to the other guy. Or if I could get him or both of the constables to be witnesses. The two constables' could better tell their views about the accident. I was never issued a ticket, my car insurance price is still the same. I couldnt confirm yet, if that guy was issued one because I was with my car being towed already and left the scene.

If you guys out there can lend your advice/s, your thoughts, please do share them with me. I really need them badly. If you guys think I should consult a lawyer, please tell me.

Much thanks for all your time.

---Miguel
Alberta Class 5 License holder, UK-British/European Union license holder.

[Ben]

Well what is on the police report?

[fcuk_it]

this happened to me like 4 years ago but in calgary... the guy ran a red light because the roads were hella slippery and he couldn't stop in time(becuase he was driving too fast for the road conditions) t-boned me and because there was no witness he claimed that i ran the red light and our insurance settled it as 50/50...
and the kicker is when i got out of the car to bitch at him he threatened me and said if i told the cops the truth he's kick my ass but i didnt care because my head was bleeding and but ya my insurance was fucked for about 3 years but now its back to normal...

[TrevorK]

Was there a redlight camera at this intersection by chance?


EDIT: As well, keep in mind what the insurance companies involved see.

There was an accident, one guy turning left the other going straight through. No witnesses as to who was doing what.

Which means that it's up to them to decide who is telling the truth, and how would they go about doing that? It sucks for the people involved, but they can't randomly pick one person....

[Zero102]

Okie dokie, let's see how much I can help here.
Since the details are so ambiguous (from the insurance company's point of view), they cannot really hold you liable for the damages. What this means, is that in the worst possible case, you won't be sued, but you won't get anything out of it. Not exactly what you want to hear.

Now, you're going to have a tough time finding a lawyer to take the case, because of the new injury caps in effect. You would have to prove that the injuries were more than a minor strain, which is somewhat difficult to do, before the settlement will top $5000, which, for a lawyer is peanuts. Again, probably not what you want to hear.

Now, for what you may want to hear. You wouldn't be much better off with a laywer anyways. The lawyer would most likely only fight for a larger settlement, and not for liability. I've had 2 involved in the past, and both told me that they don't deal at all with liability, only with the settlement. I'm not saying this is the case for all lawyers.

I don't suppose anybody else was proceeding through the intersection?

If there was a red light camera, you would be in luck, but from the sounds of it, there's not.

Stupid question, but how was the driver of the other car positioned when he hit you?... Perhaps from his injuries you can show he was not looking ahead (a bit of a reach?), and that might aid in your defense.

Your insurance company should be helping out a little bit on arguing this for you. It's their job to make sure they don't get sued, and if it goes to court (the liability that is), they will come, and help argue what happened for you.

[Z_Fan]

Sorry to hear about your accident.

I would try to see if any of the nearby buildings (if any) have surveillance cameras that might have captured your accident on tape. (Or Red Light as suggested by others.)

As for having collision insurance - (which you didn't) - I have a very simple rule for that. If you happen to be driving a car that you completely own, and don't care if the vehicle was 'taken' from you, then it is OK to drive without collision. However, if you can't afford to replace the vehicle yourself, or can't afford the loss it would impose on you - then collision is a must. Plain and simple.

Your options are quite limited IMO. Your insurance company will figure it out and one way or another, for you - life goes on - so prepare yourself for the worst case scenario. The nice thing is you get to learn first hand that life is not always fair.

If you have a lot of money, hire an independent firm to hook you up to a lie detector and have them ask questions regarding the accident that would absolve you. [from guilt or blame] Present that as your evidence, and get the other party to participate too. Wouldn't that be interesting? Unfortunately, your insurance company could care less about you, they have more money, time and resources. So, ultimately, whatever they decide to do is what you will have to live with. It's pretty much just a bunch of bullshit, but it is the way it works.

[shingouki]

I think your best bet for now is to go ask the police officers if they issued a ticket to the other party. If they did, then he should be 100% at fault. But if they didn't, and you don't turn to legal action, it's more than likely that your insurance and the other insurance company will go 50/50 or no fault, basically cuz it's the cheapest way out for both of them.

[1badPT]

Did you contact your insurance company? There is a strong likelihood that this will be settled 100% NAF (not at fault) for you.

50/50's are extremely rare-typically used for multi-car pile-ups.

IE

Car A slams on its brakes, car B rearends Car A, car C rear ends Car B

Car A is 100% NAF
Car B is 50/50 AF
Car C is 100% AF

Fault is generally determined by which vehicle was not in the correct lane/position at the time of the accident. IE if you are in a lane, and someone tries to merge into your lane and their isn't enough room for them to do so and an accident results, the person merging in is considered 100% AF regardless of whether the person in the lane made room for the merging car or not.

I'm not sure if I understand what happened in this accident exactly but if the other party ran a red and struck your vehicle, there can be no grey area here as to who is AF.

This case is a perfect example why Alberta should switch to No-Fault insurance like most of the other provinces in Canada have. You would have had guaranteed benefits for your injury / lost wages and you would have help with the damage on your vehicle for being in a NAF accident. Under Alberta's system, your only way to recover damages is a day in court. Good luck with whatever you decide.

[buh_buh]

getting screwed sucks, but it happens. It happened to me a few years ago. It was rush hour, and there was a traffic jam on the bridge of Glenmore turning onto 14th street. I was stopped in the far right lane waiting to get onto 14th and got rear ended by this huge truck and I hit the car in front of me. The old guy that hit me admitted it was 100% his fault and that my car would be fixed and back to the way it was. Long story short, A couple weeks later my insurance company calls and says the guy claims I rear ended the car in front of me first, and then he hit me after that, and since there were no witnesses that saw who hit who first for 3 years. I tried getting my lawyers to fight, but insurance company said too bad and I paid out my ass for the next 3 years for my insurance.

Good luck in dealing with this guy.

[max_boost]

My dad was involved in something similar about 6 years ago. In short, the other driver admitted 100% fault to my dad and said sorry, but he refused to wait for the police to show up because he had to rush home to take care of his kids.....sure whatever. Anyway, he later refutes his story and claims my dad was at fault. Needless to say, his word vs my dads and it ended up being a 50/50 claim. Now the good thing is, our insurance company believed my dad's story and said it was credible and filed the claim as 'not at fault' and our insurance never went up.

I hope your insurance will do the right thing in your situation.

It reminds me of what happened to my gf and I awhile back. We had a flashing green for left turn, we were the third car to proceed into the intersection, the first two cars made it, it was our turn, I see a minivan flying down at over 100kms/h and ran a solid red, our light was still flashing green. Yah it would have been his fault, but my gf and I probably would have been dead if we got hit. Not cool......

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by 1badPT
Did you contact your insurance company? There is a strong likelihood that this will be settled 100% NAF (not at fault) for you.

Wrong.
Wrong.
And wrong.

Think of it from their point of view.


You have an accident with 2 cars.

Car A says Car B ran a red.
Car B says Car A ran a red.

There is no evidence to prove either (As the way the accident happened, you can't prove who ran the red) and there are no witnesses.

What you fail to put into your original post is that who ran the red is in dispute with no proof to back up either - and the insurance companies have to come to a settlement, which when they can't prove who is at fault, comes to a 50-50 settlement.

Who is at fault? It can't be Car A. It can't be Car B. There is no way to determine fault.

Logically, unless someone gives in (Or there is a change in the circumstances/evidence) neither insurance company will agree to 100% fault because there is no proof of that.

[Tyler883]

an idea from another thread:

show him a blank video tape, and tell him about the possible jail time for perjury in front of a judge. Then, walk away as smug as you can be, make it look like you don't care to convince him of the video tape...you are just happy to see him fried by the judge, if he sticks to his story.

and, or

try to get a confession on hidden microphone, and even if it isn't admisable in court , make certain that both insurance companies hear it.


if all else fails, key his car so bad he'll never consider screwing with anyone again. LOL

[1badPT]

Originally posted by TrevorK


Wrong.
Wrong.
And wrong.

Think of it from their point of view.


You have an accident with 2 cars.

Car A says Car B ran a red.
Car B says Car A ran a red.

There is no evidence to prove either (As the way the accident happened, you can't prove who ran the red) and there are no witnesses.

What you fail to put into your original post is that who ran the red is in dispute with no proof to back up either - and the insurance companies have to come to a settlement, which when they can't prove who is at fault, comes to a 50-50 settlement.

Who is at fault? It can't be Car A. It can't be Car B. There is no way to determine fault.

Logically, unless someone gives in (Or there is a change in the circumstances/evidence) neither insurance company will agree to 100% fault because there is no proof of that.

This isn't a multi-vehicle accident - it only involves 2 cars, one of which is 100% at fault. The insurance companies are going to take the police report and the statements of each of the drivers and determine the at fault driver based on the information available to them. That's why its important he contact his own company to make sure they hear his side of the story. Insurance companies don't feud over a few hundred or a few thousand dollars and they aren't allowed to assign fault to two drivers in one accident.

And Tyler, no offense but your advice is going to put him into a worse situation than he is already. Scare tactics don't work very well in civil cases, and can put you in more trouble. Plus taping someone without their consent is not only inadmissable in court, but is a chargeable offense.

The problem here isn't bringing the case to court - migzz will have to do that anyway to recover his damages if he chooses to do so. The problem is making sure the insurance companies know his side of the story so they can adjudicate the claim properly. The claim adjudication will take place out of court.

[Tyler883]

I say beat the crap out of the guy.

He should know that when he lies about things like this, he might be victimizing a driver that will beat the crap out of him.

He obviously doesn't hold any reverence for the law, so he deserves a very unlawful retribution as pay back.

He can hide behind the law, but it can't protect him from his own actions.

[Kartelli]

usually, id agree with the whole "go through the law process" yet I was just screwed over 2 weeks ago with an accident.

Black Ice + Downhill + retarded driver doing a U-Turn into oncoming traffic = 8000 worth of damage to my vehicle and an suv infront of me who was able to get traction on the black ice.

Ruled 100% my fault because the suv didnt hit the lady doing a u-turn.

Lady doing u-turn admitted to causing the accident but gets away free and nothing I can do about it. Perfectly clean driving record down the drain for me...


So, in light of all this, id say get 2 car loads of your friends and go pay the guy a visit. Tip his car over (the one that hit you), and leave it be.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by 1badPT
This isn't a multi-vehicle accident - it only involves 2 cars, one of which is 100% at fault. The insurance companies are going to take the police report and the statements of each of the drivers and determine the at fault driver based on the information available to them. That's why its important he contact his own company to make sure they hear his side of the story. Insurance companies don't feud over a few hundred or a few thousand dollars and they aren't allowed to assign fault to two drivers in one accident.

Yes - they can assign fault to both drivers in a collision - it happens all the time in parking lots/private property incidents.

It'll even happen when there are no witnesses, and neither side can prove their story.

Think of it this way - Car A's insurance will say Car B is at fault because Car A's driver said so. Car B's insurance will say Car A is at fault because Car A's driver said so. There is no evidence to prove either side. Neither insurance company will want to make the payout. There won't be a "feud" - especially if both drivers just have PLPD ....

That is the exact situation the poster is in.

Depending on the adjustors involved, the outcome could very well be a 50-50 split. It also turn out to be 100% at fault of the poster, or 100% of the guy who hit the poster.

How do I know these "inner workings"? Because my father is one of the people who makes these decisions.

[1badPT]

Is your father an adjuster? Tell him to explain to you fault determination rules again since it sounds like you've made up some of your own.

[TrevorK]

Originally posted by 1badPT
Is your father an adjuster? Tell him to explain to you fault determination rules again since it sounds like you've made up some of your own.

Yes he is.

And no, I'm not making things up.


I've seen these rules executed in claims of friends.

Here's the story from one friend:
Turning left, light turned yellow, thought everyone was stopping and took off. However, only one person stopped and the other appeared to slow down, then sped up. Friend claims that person ran the rad, t-boned them clearing the intersection.

There was a single witness (I don't know what they stated off the top of my head) that came forward.

Guess what happened in the end? 50-50 split. Didn't totally fuck her over because they both had collision, but the accident went on their record.

According to you this can never happen. Yet strange enough it does.

You might want to make an appointment and talk to an adjuster about their practices, and hopefully they let you in on what goes on. I've discovered that there are accidents that are very similar (As accidents are rarely exactly the same) in nature, yet yield completely different fault determinations.

[1badPT]

Rates are adjusted the same whether its 100% at fault or 50/50 at fault. Who is it that is communicating that your friends were 50% at fault? A lot of people feel that they weren't at fault for an accident that they were involved in, and later find out they were assessed fault in an accident then ASSUME that they were given a 50/50.

Case in point - read Kartelli's description of his accident. Although he won't like me saying this, he is indeed 100% at fault for the accident as it was described. The SUV driver was able to maintain control of the vehicle (road conditions do not enter into fault determination-you should always be able to maintain control of your vehicle if you choose to drive it).

The lady doing the U-turn did not collide with another vehicle so of course she is not going to be deemed at fault for the accident, because her vehicle wasn't one of the vehicles that was involved in the crash. It would be up to the officer who reported to the scene to write up a ticket for a regulatory infraction, but as far as that incident is concerned, that is the most that can happen to her.

50/50's generally only occur in accidents involving 3 or more vehicles(there are exceptions but what was described in this case is not one of them). A two vehicle accident is going to be caused by 1 vehicle crashing into the other. Its up to the adjusters to decide which vehicle caused that accident - ultimately it will be the vehicle that was where it should not have been. That vehicle will be assessed 100% fault.

[pixil9]

SImple.. kidnap his wife or kids and see what he says then.