Unbelievable (insurance-related)

[WSUCougar]

Had to share this story. It’s truly remarkable, in a bad way.

Female co-worker (incidentally, one of the nicest people you’ll ever meet) gets into an auto accident months ago. It is an absolute no-brainer that she was the victim, hit broadside by a light-running idiot. I am very familiar with the intersection where this happened, and I see near-misses almost every day that go down exactly like her accident did. The northbound traffic gets a green light and green left turn arrow, then the northbound left turn arrow gets a red while the southbound straight traffic gets a green, then the northbound straight traffic gets a red while the southbound left turn gets a green arrow. Pam was in the southbound left turn lane, gets a green arrow, and then gets broadsided by a northbound guy running a red light.

Now comes the bullshit. First, no witnesses stick around. Second, the police observe the light sequence to put into the report, but IT IS DIFFERENT FOR THE EAST-WEST TRAFFIC, and that’s what they put in the report. Third, despite Pam’s statement of what happened, her insurance company’s representative doesn’t bother to check the actual light sequence. Fourth, the other guy’s insurance company – playing off the incorrect police report – states that Pam failed to yield and thus “the side of her vehicle hit the front of their client’s vehicle” (geez, that’s a good one). Fifth, her insurance company (AAA) doesn’t bother contesting anything – in fact, they don’t even say a thing – so following binding arbitration, Pam is now listed as at fault, must pay her deductible, must pay rental car fees, and gets an accident on her record!

Upon hearing of this, Pam gave AAA the what-for, and after investigating (about frikkin’ time), the agent agrees that they were in error…but that it’s too late to do anything!

Anyway, I think she should go to one of those TV news consumer advocacy reporters and lay this puppy on them. What a crock of shit.

[BrianD]

Can she sue her insurrance company? That sounds like negligence or possibly fraud on their part.

[Arctus]

Can she sue her insurrance company? That sounds like negligence or possibly fraud on their part.

I would doubt it. They went off the information on the police report. If a mistake was made on the report, the ins. company can't be held liable for it.

[BrianD]

I would doubt it. They went off the information on the police report. If a mistake was made on the report, the ins. company can't be held liable for it.

Even if the facts were in question? That seems like sloppy work - which I know isn't actionable in itself. Can the city be held liable for the incorrect report? It seems like someone should be liable for a mistake which cost the girl money...though I suppose it could be her for not verifying the police report.

[Drake]

I had the same sort of thing happen to me about ten years ago. I was 25 and on my way home from working the night shift. They were 60ish and ran a red light. Guess who was at fault?

[watravaler]

That's a bummer, man.

[Arctus]

I'm a civil / highway engineer, and have been involved with several accident report reviews and accident reconstructions. I can't help throwing my two cents in on this topic.

Had to share this story. It’s truly remarkable, in a bad way.

Female co-worker gets into an auto accident months ago. It is an absolute no-brainer that she was the victim, hit broadside by a light-running idiot. I am very familiar with the intersection where this happened, and I see near-misses almost every day that go down exactly like her accident did. The northbound traffic gets a green light and green left turn arrow, then the northbound left turn arrow gets a red while the southbound straight traffic gets a green, then the northbound straight traffic gets a red while the southbound left turn gets a green arrow. Pam was in the southbound left turn lane, gets a green arrow, and then gets broadsided by a northbound guy running a red light.

Based off of this, I am assuming that the main road of the intersection is northbound / southbound (multi lane with a median), and eastbound /westbound is a minor road (regular two lane road).

I absolutely hate it when left turn movements do not occur at the same time on the main road, for the very reasons that you note in your post. Sometimes alternating lefts are necessary, usually due to the fact that the intersection is not wide enough to accommodate simultaneous left turns at the same time. I assume that there is plenty of room (due to the wide roadway width) for eastbound / westbound traffic to make simultaneous left hand turns. I also assume that the northbound / southbound roadway does not enough room because the eastbound / westbound is a minor road. The only other reason that this could be is because the roadways intersect at a significantly skewed angle.

Now comes the bullshit. First, no witnesses stick around. Second, the police observe the light sequence to put into the report, but IT IS DIFFERENT FOR THE EAST-WEST TRAFFIC, and that’s what they put in the report. Third, despite Pam’s statement of what happened, her insurance company’s representative doesn’t bother to check the actual light sequence. Fourth, the other guy’s insurance company – playing off the incorrect police report – states that Pam failed to yield and thus “the side of her vehicle hit the front of their client’s vehicle” (geez, that’s a good one). Fifth, her insurance company (AAA) doesn’t bother contesting anything – in fact, they don’t even say a thing – so following binding arbitration, Pam is now listed as at fault, must pay her deductible, must pay rental car fees, and gets an accident on her record!

Regarding all of this:

I'm guessing that the police report listed the accident as no fault and no tickets were issued. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as this is most likely the single most important piece of information regarding this accident.

In any accident report that I have dealt with, the police officer conducting the investigation has been responsible for determining fault. He can of course deem the accident "no fault", which then leaves it up to the insurance companies to hash out the issue. Many accident investigators try very hard to rule an accident as "no fault", as it requires a lot less effort on their part to reconstruct the accident, and they use the assurance of a "no fault" accident to placate the drivers involved in the accident (who usually are both swearing up and down that they did nothing wrong).

The accident investigator was handicapped by the fact that there were no witnesses, and most likely used this as a crutch to rule "no fault". If he did, this is piss poor investigation. Unless there is some other unusual factor (such as the traffic signal malfunctioning, or a driver being infuenced by a separate accident) there is no good excuse for fault not to be assigned on an accident occuring at a controlled intersection.

If the accident investigator botched the signal timing issue because he captured the pattern of the side street, this is beyond piss poor.

All of this being said, police have a lot more important things to be worried about than dotting the i's and crossing the t's on an accident that does not result in injury. I in no way blame them for taking the path of least resistance when writing accident reports. I'd probably do the same thing if I was in their shoes.

Upon hearing of this, Pam gave AAA the what-for, and after investigating (about frikkin’ time), the agent agrees that they were in error…but that it’s too late to do anything!

Anyway, I think she should go to one of those TV news consumer advocacy reporters and lay this puppy on them. What a crock of shit.

I feel sorry for her, it sounds like she got the shaft.

Its hard for people to stay focused when they get involved in an accident. However, it is important to make sure that the report accurately reflects what happened. If the police do not provide an accident report at the scene of the accident, ask to read the report before the officer leaves the scene. If you disagree with the content of the report, respectfully voice your concerns to the officer. If he is unwilling to revise his report, respectfully ask him to note on the report that you disagree with his findings. If the report is written as no fault and you know (deep down inside know, not "I think I got something to hang my hat on" know) that the other driver is at fault, explain to the officer that you understand that "no fault" means that no one is being charged, and that you appreciate not being charged, but that there are financial implications on the back end and respectfully ask the officer to reconsider his assessment of who is at fault.

Shortly after the accident, make sure the insurance company fully understands your side of the story. Make sure that you have this conversation at least once after they are in receipt of the report. If you have the conversation on the front end of the insurance company receiving the report, the insurance company may let the facts of the police report speak for themselves.

[KevinNU7]

Why didn't see review the police report months ago?

[JPhillips]

I've been involved in two accidents in the past five years where it was clearly the fault of the other driver. One was a with a woman who ran a red light as I was turning left and one was with a man who lost control on I-95 and hit me on the driver's side which knocked me off the road.

Both times I tried to deal with the insurance company myself. I wasn't out to make a profit, but I wanted a new car to replace the totaled vehicle, rental car costs and in one case hospitable costs. Both times I had to fight the insurance company every step of the way. I found it impossible to get a just settlement.

If I am in another accident I will not hesitate to get a lawyer and sue the opposing insurance company. I reccomend getting an attorney to anyone I know involved in an accident. I hate that it has come to this, but I don't believe its possible to work rationally with an insurance company. They are built to only respond to intimidation.

I think your friend's biggest mistake was assuming that she would be treated fairly by an insurance company.

[BrianD]

I've been involved in two accidents in the past five years where it was clearly the fault of the other driver. One was a with a woman who ran a red light as I was turning left and one was with a man who lost control on I-95 and hit me on the driver's side which knocked me off the road.

Both times I tried to deal with the insurance company myself. I wasn't out to make a profit, but I wanted a new car to replace the totaled vehicle, rental car costs and in one case hospitable costs. Both times I had to fight the insurance company every step of the way. I found it impossible to get a just settlement.

If I am in another accident I will not hesitate to get a lawyer and sue the opposing insurance company. I reccomend getting an attorney to anyone I know involved in an accident. I hate that it has come to this, but I don't believe its possible to work rationally with an insurance company. They are built to only respond to intimidation.

I think your friend's biggest mistake was assuming that she would be treated fairly by an insurance company.

It really depends on your area and situation. My wife got hit twice (once parked, once a semi decided it wanted her lane and pushed her off the road), and my father and sister both got broad-sided by people running stop signs. In all cases the insurance companies took care of rental cars and, where appropriate, totalled vehicles. Nobody suffered major injuries, but the minor medical bills were covered, an in two of the cases, $500 was offered for pain and suffering...of which there really wasn't any. These four accidents were handled better than anyone expected.

[JPhillips]

Both of my accident claims were against AllState and I can't speak poorly enough about their treatment of non-customers.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Generally speaking, she probably has a claim against her insurance co. and especially the attorney that represented her who was hired by the insurance co. Technically, that attorney owed her a duty (NOT the insurance co.) to defend her. If she tells him something about the case, he ought to act on it. If no attorney was involved, and the insurance co. did not dispute this, then the insurance co. likely can be on the hook for violating their duty to defend her under the insurance policy.

[IwasHere]

Please do not blame the Insurance company for this one. Their hands are tied once the Police Officer put "No Fault" in his report. You are now responsible for paying for you Car damage from your Collision Insurance.

"No Fault" on a police report mean "Your Fault" to the insurance company. If you have Collision Insurance then you are going to have to Pay your Deductible, if you only have Liability then you are shit out of luck and must pay for everything.

Don't blame the Insurance company for this one. Oh, and now thanks to the police report, your friend can now look forward to her Insurance premiums going up.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

That's just plain wrong (or more bluntly, that's plain b.s.). In any civil action, the police report is simply a piece of evidence (if it even gets past a hearsay objection) like anything else that can be rebutted by other evidence (including actually talking to the police officer about changing their report after hearing other evidence). The insurance co. was just lazy and pushing paper. Shame on them. I can't stand insurance co. apologists like this. Blame it on someone else is their modus operandi.

[Telle]

When I was in an accident about a year and a half ago the police report did not assign fault. It didn't say "no fault".. but just didn't mention fault anywhere. The situation was that an SUV pulled out of a sign street where she had a stop sign and ran into me, as I was driving along a main road. When we talked with my insurance company and told them what happened, they immediately waved my deductable since it was obvious I was not at fault.. and when we talked to her insurance company they immediately agreed to pay for the rental car because it was obvious that their client was at fault.