Hit by a car on my bike - car’s insurance says I’m liable

[supernovak]

Hi everyone, I was riding my bike to work last week going down a straight road at about 18mph. A driver from oncoming traffic took a left hand turn right in front of me and I tried to stop in time but couldn’t and slammed into the side of their car and went over the handlebars onto my left shoulder and head. I wasn’t thinking straight at the time and didn’t call the police (bad move I know). I didn’t think I was that hurt at the time but once the adrenaline wore off I really started to feel it. I went to the hospital for x-rays and nothing is broken but I may have to follow up with an orthopedist. I’d also like to get money to help pay for my broken helmet and other bike parts that need to be replaced.

I just talked to the car owner’s insurance and they said I am 70% liable because I hit her car near the back of the car and she was almost through the turn. She was pulling across traffic into a residential street - there was no stop sign or light, and I was obeying all traffic rules.

I don’t have car insurance because I don’t have a car - I feel kind of powerless, is there anything I can do to make them accept liability?

 

[spencer5150]

@supernovak In a left hand turn situation, the driver has a “duty” to only proceed with a turn when safe. If you were an oncoming car, the logic would still apply, and they’d be 100% at fault regardless if hitting them in their front corner, side, or rear portion.

I have a really good feeling I know what carrier is trying to hold you 70% at fault, because that specific carrier is known across the industry for trying this tactic to minimize liability exposure. To the average consumer like yourself, this bullying tactic is enough to make you go away. When they tried this s*** with me, I contacted a personal injury attorney and that liability decision went from me being 60% at fault…to them accepting 100%.

I would absolutely consult a personal injury attorney here - they speak the insurance carrier’s language, and this is a perfect scenario for them to flip that unethical attempt to hold you at fault for their driver’s mistake.

 

[juliand]

@spencer5150 Like a good neighbor....

 

[spencer5150]

@juliand If you know you know, and you obviously know lol. They definitely picked the wrong one when they tried it with me.

 

[juliand]

@spencer5150 Oh I can't wait with them lol. So glad I'm out of liability I HATED arguing with them!

 

[spencer5150]

@juliand Sir we’re holding you 60% at fault for not avoiding the accident by crossing into oncoming traffic and going head on into another car.

Attorney: see you in arbitration

Them after arbitration: we have updated our liability decision to accept 100% fault

I know deep in their data their must be some metric that confirms a percentage of the time they get away with this nonsense, that has to be why they keep trying.

 

[juliand]

@spencer5150 They keep doing it until the DOI gets a phone call. Then they clean up their act and inevitably start doing it again until it gets so egregious someone calls the DOI- rinse and repeat.

Like a good neighbor - go fuck yourself

 

[alola123]

@juliand More people should be aware of and contact the doi

 

[quietfriend]

@alola123 doi?

 

[alola123]

@quietfriend Department of Insurance. Each state in the US has one that acts as a regulatory body. They regulate the insurance companies

 

[misterp]

@alola123 The DOI doesn’t really do much of anything, assuming you’re not acting in bad faith in some egregious manner. The adjuster’s supervisor will review the claim and respond to the DOI, and most of the time, the supervisor will rely on the adjuster’s position. It’s not a great option unless you’re certain that serious BS is afoot, e.g. misrepresenting coverage, ridiculously low settlement offers ($20 for a spinal fusion), etc.

In this case, it sounds like there is a simple disagreement about the allegations set forth in the matter. No need for the tough guy nonsense. Almost times, attorneys do what the claimant/plaintiff can do themselves, but they take 30%-50% of the settlement in the process. The value of the case doesn’t magically increase because so-and-so is representing you.

TLDR: DOI should be reserved for sincere complaints, claimants are often better off pro-se, build rapport with the opposing carrier’s adjuster and iron out the facts.

 

[seeking2015]

@quietfriend Sorry saw your flair and couldn’t help myself. Pet Insurance. Sounds interesting. How do you like it?

 

[quietfriend]

@seeking2015 tbh I am just a technical writer for the project management team, I dont know much about it. I better remove that lol

 

[beechcott]

@quietfriend States, and or maybe federal government, has agencies that regulate insurance providers. DOI=Department of Insurance.

 

[hakeem_alyazeedi]

@spencer5150 isn't that basically unethical business practice? or everyone just rolls their eyes and moves on?

 

[spencer5150]

@hakeem_alyazeedi Absolutely unethical in my opinion. But if the general public has no concept of the motor vehicle code, and they don’t realize the claims adjuster on the other line just got out of training and is reading from a script, then there’s enough of chance they’ll say “welllll I guess you’re right, I should’ve swerved out of the bike lane and gotten hit by another car, or just not ridden my bike at all that day…I guess it is my fault.”, then they’ll keep doing it.

 

[agentmatrix1]

@spencer5150 I used to work for their homeowner claims. Didn't know they did this at the time. I can tell you there is absolutely no way they have robust enough data to figure out how often they get away with it.

 

[carlasangels]

@agentmatrix1 I worked at a different insurance company in the big data department and we know how much we get away with things. That’s why we sometimes didn’t file for rate adjustments because it was in our favor or why we only pushed certain types of claims and not others. Someone knows.

 

[agentmatrix1]

@carlasangels Oh I believe most carriers are capable of it. The difference when I used to wear khakis was the real lack of integration between our different systems and the age of some of our softwares. It was basically lotus notes over there.

 

[carlasangels]

@agentmatrix1 Yeah our tech was really old too. But we got the data out somehow.