car was hit by another car when reversed from the parking lot
My car was parked on one-side of parking lot with one-way aisle. when I reversed my car to the middle of the aisle, I stopped there as I found a car from the parking lot behind my car rapidly reversed and hit on my car. My car was damaged with a deep dent and caused problem with the light-signal system. It's very clear that my car was hit by that car. Unfortunately, the car's insurance company make a judgment for only 50%responsibility because, the insurance told me it's illegal to stop the car in the middle of the aisle. Is this true? Why do I need to take 50% responsibility while I stopped there without moving?
Here's my problem with this - a trained insurance agent and a trained accident investigator (with a combined total of a lot of years in the business) have both given their opinions based on those years of training and experience.
The response is a lengthy post filled with inaccuracies from not having to answer questions from your own insurance company to garage employees being able to qualify as expert witnesses concerning an angle of impact.
As far as whether a driver HAS to obey parking lot stop signs - don't obey them, get in an accident, be 100% at fault.
As far as giving out information over the phone, taking notes, getting ID - as the insurance company has undoubtedly told the OP, you say, "I am unable to speak with you about this accident" and HANG UP!
As far as it being illegal to stop in a driving lane AND, therefore, running over a child or a bike (due to the "do not stop" law) - preposterous and too far fetched to even address.
And Scott summed it all up, including the dollar figures.
Please don't dictate where and how I can post, and how long my posts can be.
The OP said that she has been talking to the OTHER guy's insurance.....I recommended to her to not talk to them, without legal advice. Never did I say to "Hang up on her own insurance company"...nor did I say to hang up on anybody.
The OP claims that she was stationary and that the other car kept coming. Now, I totally understand that is is common practice to assume "LIAR", and no one here knows the truth of what happened and there is NO witnesses, which is why I suggested that she could get a QUALIFIED expert. An experienced, licensed, educated body repair man could qualify as an expert as long as he has vast experience and a good background. He would/should have experience in determining how the dents/scratches happened between two cars in an accident. It would be up to the court (or arbitration) to accept his testimony based on his experience and background.
I used many words in there PURPOSELY that conveyed very clearly that I am by no means an expert TELLING someone what to do, only making suggestions. Words such as POSSIBLY, CHECK THE LAW FIRST, CAN BE (instead of ARE). I have had experience in an auto accident....actually 2 accidents (one mine, and one my husbands), and I am experienced in how the ins company will respond.
If the OP wasn't professing her innocence, the I would not have responded at all, but she wants to prove her innocence, so my suggestions are valid. There is nothing wrong with suggesting CHECKING INTO getting a qualified witness to study the impact, there is also nothing wrong with being cautious in conversations with the other parties ins company.
The OP wants to prove innocence and not have a record of an accident and have her insurance rates go through the roof, I would assume. After thinking about it, since she didn't call the police (who could've made an accident report that might have helped), my suggestion was toget an expert witness.
To OP-Why didn't you call the police? Did one party not have valid license or insurance? If that's the case, then that changes things and should've been mentioned. Lots of times when the police aren't called, someone has a warrant, or no license, or no insurance....or worse, drugs in the car or they're DUI. If one (or both) person didn't have a license or was DUI then the insurance companie wouldn't be paying. That's not the case, is it?
From one of the 2 Insurance Agents:
Quote:
Thanks JKT
(I'm an insurance agent.)
The fact that you were both going in reverse at the time of the collision is what makes you each responsible for 50% of the damages. You were both responsible for looking to make sure the way was clear before proceeding. Without any witnesses that can say you were at a stopping point and she collided with you, then there's no way of proving one person was "more at fault".
If you'd been backing out of the space, stopped momentarily to change gears, and then she backed out while you "owned" the aisle then perhaps you might have a case. Perhaps. But again, no witnesses... so you're stuck with 50%.
As Judy said, you can always take the person to small claims and try your luck there but honestly I don't see much of a case because... umm I think I said this... no witnesses.
__________________
Exactly, I completely understand this posters position, clear, concise.....but look at the underlined portion, it backs up what I said that the OP could be innocent, all she has to do is prove it. Expert witness was what I thought of.
Another thought I just had is, does the parking lot you were in have video surveillance? You should call immediately and ask. If they do, make an appointment to get down there and review the tapes to see if they show clearly what happened, and there ya go, you have a great chance of getting vindicated!! Good luck.
I did not in any manner direct how long your posts should be and this is merely a backlash due to the explanation of site rules/procedures following out last disagreement - http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/small-c...st-370375.html.
As far as experienced auto body repairmen being sworn in as experts auto accident reconstruction experts are trained exactly in that - accident reconstruction. Not repairs, not guessing.
I never said you told people to hang up on an insurance company. I'm the one who said to say you can't discuss the accident AND THEN HANG UP.
Apparently you have some experience due to two auto accidents. I investigate well over a thousand a year. Your experience is very different from mine. Likewise you know from your experience how insurance companies react. My experience is different from yours.
Whether people had a license, didn't have a license, had drugs in the car makes absolutely NO difference in this accident. The failure to have a license or having drugs in the car was NOT the proximate cause of the accident and is, therefore, meaningless.
As far as her insurance rates going up - if she is with a company which increases rates based on accidents (and they don't all surcharge based on fault; many surcharged based on the number of accidents) she's already reported it!
EDIT: I do Plaintiff's work. I very, very seldom work for the insurance company or the Defendant. I try to "make a case" for the Plainitff when there is a case to be made and when it's practical to pursue the matter. This is what I do; I'm not just guessing how things work.
Please don't dictate where and how I can post, and how long my posts can be.
No one did any of that. The only thing that was done was criticize your post for being impractical and unhelpful. Which, IMHO, it was! No one is denying your right to make a fool of yourself by posting something like what you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeby
If the OP wasn't professing her innocence, the I would not have responded at all, but she wants to prove her innocence, so my suggestions are valid.
But, previous responses indicated that the OP might not have been innocent. The circumstances were not at all clear whether the OP wasn't partially at fault. As to your suggestions being vaild, I disagree in THESE circumstances. In other circumstances, maybe not.
Finally, you mention 2 experiences with insurance companies, You seem to think that balances the knowledge and experience of insurance agent and trained accident investigator.
If you'd been backing out of the space, stopped momentarily to change gears, and then she backed out while you "owned" the aisle then perhaps you might have a case. Perhaps
(from the insurance expert, see previous post)
This is why I then suggested the following: From post # 12
Quote:
Exactly, I completely understand this posters position, clear, concise.....but look at the underlined portion, it backs up what I said that the OP could be innocent, all she has to do is prove it. Expert witness was what I thought of.
Another thought I just had is, does the parking lot you were in have video surveillance? You should call immediately and ask. If they do, make an appointment to get down there and review the tapes to see if they show clearly what happened, and there ya go, you have a great chance of getting vindicated!! Good luck.
OK, now I will graciously take the hint and stay off the thread.
...This is just my opinion based on what I am picturing in my mind, I'm by means no expert!!!!
This is obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeby
(from the insurance expert, see previous post)
This is why I then suggested the following: From post # 12
OK, now I will graciously take the hint and stay off the thread.
The fact stands the the OP has no witness that can attest to anything that may or may not have happened that day. As Scott and Judy have both pointed out- 1) It'd cost WAY more to hire these experts to reconstruct the scene for such a minor incident. More than the OP stands to gain. 2) she's already filed the claim.
I just got the mail from the insurance company. In the letter it noticed as below:
"We have investigared the circumstances of the loss refered to above. Our obligation as an insurer is to pay damages for which our insured is legally liable. According to the information available to us to date, our investigation indicates the damages occurred because AAA(the name of the driver who hit my car) was backing when BBB (my name) backed up and stopped behind AAA's vehicle. Based on these facts, the percentage of negligence apportioned to you or your driver is 50%. the percentage of negligence apportioned to our insured driver is 50%."
This means my car was stopped and can be hit by another car?
I just got the mail from the insurance company. In the letter it noticed as below:
"We have investigared the circumstances of the loss refered to above. Our obligation as an insurer is to pay damages for which our insured is legally liable. According to the information available to us to date, our investigation indicates the damages occurred because AAA(the name of the driver who hit my car) was backing when BBB (my name) backed up and stopped behind AAA's vehicle. Based on these facts, the percentage of negligence apportioned to you or your driver is 50%. the percentage of negligence apportioned to our insured driver is 50%."
This means my car was stopped and can be hit by another car?
Thanks!
This means what I said in my first post... both of you were backing up at the time of the collision... there's no way of determining one being more at fault that the other so 50% is fair given the circumstances.
Linear Mode
