I got rear-ended. MUST I go through other driver's insurance to collect for the damages?

[Brian777]

Exhibits get presented at trial along with your testimony.



That's not evidence of anything the driver did. It's only evidence of what the street looks like when nothing is happening. Present it if you like, but it isn't likely to help you.



The position of the damage on the vehicles might give a hint to how the accident happened.



Send the check back with a letter declining the offer and attach a copy of your completed (but unfiled complaint) along with your estimate. Then see what the response is.

Just holding on to the check without cashing it can be construed as accepting the money. That you might not want to send the check back for fear of not getting it again implies that you have accepted it whether you cash it or not.

I didn't think of sending it back. But the tone & demeanor of the adjuster I dealt with, whoa he was very cocky. I don't want to deal with them at all. In fact, even before I filed a claim, when I called their 1-800 number to find out how to file, the agent who answered had major attitude-- hostile, his entire tone and demeanor. So I'm not expecting them to act in good faith at all. From the get-go they seem to see it contentious, and therefore preemptively take an adversarial tone and stance.

 

[Brian777]

Most all police departments especially ones in CA use programs to build the police report. They should have photos and diagrams but each department is different. Only OP knows if they took them, and the police report is govern by here say rule but that can be over come by witnesses, photographs, and diagrams. CA uses a pure comparative negligence to tort cases, so what ever percent at fault each party is will govern how much they can recover.

I am not a real big fan of tort reform, as it limits the ability for plaintiffs to collect all their damages.

I called the police but they did not come to the scene, said it wasn't necessary (and in a city like L.A. they probably feel that they have better things to do). I filed a report online after the fact. But I don't know what the purpose of that is if no officers come to the scene and lay eyes on it.

 

[Redemptionman]

Then it will come down to your pictures and evidence. When you are backing up and collide into another vehicle that puts you in some comparative negligence for the accident. If 2500 is 25% of what you want then it sounds like you want a totaled vehicle. Man honestly insurance companies are empowered these days and pay attorneys more than they pay off claims and insureds. If it was me with economic loss of use and diminished value combined with the amount of property damage you are claiming then I would shop this around to some various attorneys. If you have to pay 20-30 percent you still are going to make more money on this than you would had you handled it yourself.

Good Luck.

 

[Zigner]

I called the police but they did not come to the scene, said it wasn't necessary (and in a city like L.A. they probably feel that they have better things to do). I filed a report online after the fact. But I don't know what the purpose of that is if no officers come to the scene and lay eyes on it.

In that case, the report will play no part in this matter.

Let me give you a possible scenario here that would explain how you could be at fault (even partially). You were traveling along the street while the other driver was stopped on a side street waiting to make a left turn. As you passed, the other driver made the left turn behind you when you suddenly stopped, causing her to hit your vehicle. If the damage is on the side of your vehicle (I'm still not clear on that), then it happened because she was trying to swerve to avoid hitting you.

Now, you will (both) need to prove it happened how you say.

 

[Brian777]

Then it will come down to your pictures and evidence. When you are backing up and collide into another vehicle that puts you in some comparative negligence for the accident. If 2500 is 25% of what you want then it sounds like you want a totaled vehicle. Man honestly insurance companies are empowered these days and pay attorneys more than they pay off claims and insureds. If it was me with economic loss of use and diminished value combined with the amount of property damage you are claiming then I would shop this around to some various attorneys. If you have to pay 20-30 percent you still are going to make more money on this than you would had you handled it yourself.

Good Luck.

Well HE collided with ME, since I was stopped. The last thing I want is a totaled vehicle. The repairs are costly because he damaged the body & bumper, and BMW parts can be pricey. Also the muffler would need to be replaced since he smashed that in as well. Also because the repair facility would need to keep the car for 22 days, so I included the cost of a rental car for that period. It was my dream car, had only bought it less than 4 months prior, and after not having had a car for 4 years prior. I was super careful with the car. The other driver is an older man in his 70s who simply wasn't paying attention or had slow reflexes. This accident has scarred me emotionally too, as I re-live the trauma of the impact every single day when I drive. I'm now paranoid and have significant anxiety when driving, I don't feel "normal" like I used to. It takes a real toll on my mental health.

 

[Zigner]

Well HE collided with ME, since I was stopped.

Prove it.

(I'm just playing devil's advocate)

EDIT: Besides, in the scenario I listed above, even if you were stopped, you could be found to be partially at-fault. The concept that the trailing car in a rear-end collision is always at fault is not true. There are situations where the leading driver can be found at-fault...whether partially or fully.

 

[Brian777]

Prove it.

(I'm just playing devil's advocate)

EDIT: Besides, in the scenario I listed above, even if you were stopped, you could be found to be partially at-fault. The concept that the trailing car in a rear-end collision is always at fault is not true. There are situations where the leading driver can be found at-fault...whether partially or fully.

I'm sure as heck gonna try to. Here's the other driver's view. My car was approximately where the blue blob is...hope this pic uploads...

 

[Zigner]

I'm sure as heck gonna try to. Here's the other driver's view. My car was approximately where the blue blob is...hope this pic uploads...

Your car was a couple of feet from the intersection and on the left hand side of the road when you got rear-ended?

How do you intend to prove that you were stopped? The only real way(s) to prove it would be eyewitness testimony, dash-cam video, or an admission from the other party. If you don't have one of those things, then you are simply going to need to pray that your biased version of the story is more convincing than her biased version of the story.

 

[Brian777]

Well it was a couple car lengths ahead of the intersection. As for PROVING that I was stopped, well I don't know how anyone could prove that, absent any security cam footage, but I don't believe there's a camera on the building. So all I can do is present the photos & "Rules of the Road" and hope the judge believes me. But that's part of my point -- even though *I* know I was stopped, even if I wasn't, he still would have & should have seen me IF he'd been paying attention. I mean did you see that view?! It's super wide open, there is nothing at all to obstruct a driver's view coming out of that alley. But from my position, the view looking at that alley intersection is largely blocked by the building. Additionally, his car sat in a higher position, as the driveway from the alley is higher, and the street lower. So you can see the entire street in both directions looking out from the alley, but the reverse is not true due to the building & height difference. I'll just have to illustrate it all as best I can to the judge, if it gets that far.

 

[Zigner]

Well it was a couple car lengths ahead of the intersection. As for PROVING that I was stopped, well I don't know how anyone could prove that, absent any security cam footage, but I don't believe there's a camera on the building. So all I can do is present the photos & "Rules of the Road" and hope the judge believes me. But that's part of my point -- even though *I* know I was stopped, even if I wasn't, he still would have & should have seen me IF he'd been paying attention.

And THAT is why his insurance company offered to accept half the blame.

I'll just have to illustrate it all as best I can to the judge, if it gets that far.

Yes, you will need to present solid evidence. Your testimony is evidence, and if it's more believable (to the judge) than his testimony, you should prevail.

 

[Redemptionman]

Yep, the best you can hope for is if you car is a 2015+ model and has a black box data logger. It will cost probably around a grand or so to pull the information from it and have it analyzed that you indeed were not moving. The question is do you want to go through all that?

 

[Zigner]

Yep, the best you can hope for is if you car is a 2015+ model ...

From the very first post in the thread:

It's my dream car, I just got it 3 months ago, a 2001 BMW 530i...

 

[Redemptionman]

From the very first post in the thread:

Yep, think it was from 2014 on but anyway doubt a 2001 BMW came with a black box EDR. So, welcome to he said she said and comparative analysis as to fault.

 

[adjusterjack]

I didn't think of sending it back. But the tone & demeanor of the adjuster I dealt with, whoa he was very cocky. I don't want to deal with them at all. In fact, even before I filed a claim, when I called their 1-800 number to find out how to file, the agent who answered had major attitude-- hostile, his entire tone and demeanor. So I'm not expecting them to act in good faith at all. From the get-go they seem to see it contentious, and therefore preemptively take an adversarial tone and stance.

That's his job. He has a contractual obligation to defend his insured. That's exactly how I would treat a claimant who was making a claim against my insured - adversarial. Prove your claim. No, I don't believe you, I believe my insured. I'll give you 50%. Take it or leave it. You're taking this too personal and maybe reading things into the adjuster's attitude that aren't there. I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of being rude and hostile when I told a claimant things they didn't want to hear.

 

[Brian777]

That's his job. He has a contractual obligation to defend his insured. That's exactly how I would treat a claimant who was making a claim against my insured - adversarial. Prove your claim. No, I don't believe you, I believe my insured. I'll give you 50%. Take it or leave it. You're taking this too personal and maybe reading things into the adjuster's attitude that aren't there. I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of being rude and hostile when I told a claimant things they didn't want to hear.

You can disagree with someone, maintain a position or tell them something they might not agree with without being hostile or adversarial. People who don't understand that are clods or really unrefined. Not saying that about you, but being negative and rude is simply unevolved and very base.
I've had to tell people things they didn't want to hear almost on a daily basis at previous jobs. That doesn't mean you're negative about it. It's all in how you say it, which includes tone/manner & word choice.

 

[Redemptionman]

You can disagree with someone, maintain a position or tell them something they might not agree with without being hostile or adversarial. People who don't understand that are clods or really unrefined. Not saying that about you, but being negative and rude is simply unevolved and very base.
I've had to tell people things they didn't want to hear almost on a daily basis at previous jobs. That doesn't mean you're negative about it. It's all in how you say it, which includes tone/manner & word choice.

You act like they care, insurance is a business. You have the right if you do not like them to take your business else where. Customer service for you individually is the least likely thing they care about. I loath insurance companies for the most part which is why most companies self insurer, if they have the assets/ bonds. So, they don't have to deal with an insurance company which more than likely spends premium assets on investments and only allocates small amounts to claims. The more bad faith attachments they get hit with the more likely they will be to want to settle claims. Then again, I think they look at it on a case by case basis.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I loath insurance companies for the most part which is why most companies, if they have the assets/ bonds self insurer. So, they don't have to deal with an insurance company which more than likely spends premium assets on investments and only allocates small amounts to claims.

Companies self insure because it saves them a ton of money and provides them flexibility. It has nothing to do with their feelings about insurance firms. And insurance firms only need pay out what they are contractually obligated to pay. They keep enough reserves to meet their anticipated claims. It's not a surprise that insurers are in business to make money, just like any other enterprise. I don't know why you seem to think that insurers shouldn't make money like anyone else.

 

[Redemptionman]

Companies self insure because it saves them a ton of money and provides them flexibility. It has nothing to do with their feelings about insurance firms. And insurance firms only need pay out what they are contractually obligated to pay. They keep enough reserves to meet their anticipated claims. It's not a surprise that insurers are in business to make money, just like any other enterprise. I don't know why you seem to think that insurers shouldn't make money like anyone else.

It creates an environment whereby they skip out on their obligation to their insured. Most insurance companies can break laws in the various states they sell insurance not adhering to all state statutes. They make donations to various judge campaigns in order to get favorable legislation/ outcomes. They try to skate by on the lowest common denominator not to mention their obligation to their insureds. I could care less how insurance companies make money off their insureds premiums but when they do not pay or try to get away with what they are doing in the OPs case then it can create "Bad Faith".

Again, anytime an insurance company has shareholders/ inventors then they are more concerned with their stock price than they are their policyholders. They can do business that way but I don't have to do business with them. Plenty of mutual insurance companies out there who are not publicly traded and have their insureds best interests at heart when it comes to settling.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Plenty of mutual insurance companies out there who are not publicly traded and have their insureds best interests at heart when it comes to settling.

I've done business with lots of different insurance companies over the years. I've not found mutual insurance companies as a whole to be any better or worse in terms of service or pay out of claims than other insurers. In both groups there are good companies and bad ones.

 

[Redemptionman]

I've done business with lots of different insurance companies over the years. I've not found mutual insurance companies as a whole to be any better or worse in terms of service or pay out of claims than other insurers. In both groups there are good companies and bad ones.

Probably, but it takes only one bad experience with an insurance company to make one never want to ever do business with them again.