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

[resjudicata]

@spencer5150 God they’re the worst lol I had to argue with them for rear endings , my insured always reversed into them

 

[jnelson07]

@juliand Hope you never have a roof problem!

 

[juliand]

@jnelson07 I would never fuck with them and my own possessions

I'm all about Farmers

 

[nomiplease]

@jnelson07 Tell me more.

 

[lafferty]

@spencer5150 I’m usually against getting attorneys involved but this is a scenario where it’s probably a good idea.

Applying 70% fault to someone on a bike that got left-turned at an uncontrolled intersection is fuckin ludicrous. If that’s the company’s directive to their adjusters, that’s a bad faith lawsuit just waiting to happen.

 

[acharan12]

@spencer5150 You could always try telling the adjuster that and see what happens. “How can I be 70% at fault when the driver was making a left hand turn across traffic? That’s not possible.”

If they double down on it, then yeah, get a lawyer. But they might work with you if you give a little pushback

 

[spencer5150]

@acharan12 That’s always possible too. I’ve found as a prior claims adjuster, broker, and victim of an at fault accident, that this route doesn’t seem to be too effective.

 

[supernovak]

@acharan12 I expressed this when they told me. I was honestly shocked that that was their decision. May try to talk to them again with all of the advice from this thread and then go attorney if needed

 

[skikid52]

@spencer5150 While I agree with your analysis regarding left turns, the bicyclist collided near the rear of the car. Left turning car was nearly finished with their turn when the impact occurred. Left turn liability will always be majority on left turning party, but I could see the bicyclist catching at least 10% liability for failure to maintain proper lookout.

 

[compwiz02]

@skikid52 But a bike isn't traveling at the same rate a car would be, and doesn't have features like anti lock brakes.

Seems reasonable that even with reasonable reaction time a braking,they could hit the rear.

 

[skikid52]

@compwiz02 A bike has lower mass and carries less inertia, and a bike can stop faster than a car. We don’t have any information if the car making the left turn did so at a high rate of speed. To clear nearly the entire car save for the rear indicates the bicyclist failed to maintain proper lookout, which is why partial liability of 10% makes sense.

 

[compwiz02]

@skikid52 A bike also has much less tire surface area, can only fully brake with one wheel in many situations and at 18 mph will still take a fair distance to stop.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that he didn't react and try and stop quickly as most bikers are very aware of how deadly bike vs. Car accidents are.

 

[skikid52]

@compwiz02 It’s perfectly reasonable to assume he didn’t react and stop quick enough to avoid the loss, in the absence of any additional scene information. There are of course a myriad of things differentiating bikes from cars, but drivers are all held to the same standard.

The turning vehicle definitely has majority liability, but given the location of the impact (rear of the vehicle), it is perfectly reasonable to find 10% liability on the bicyclist.

 

[juliand]

@skikid52 Can we be reasonable (like people on a jury if this hypothetically goes to trial reasonable)?

Honestly people would definitely side with the biker/pedestrian in this instance because of their innate vulnerability- not having a steel cage around the body.

"Like a good neighbor" would most likely lose in this scenario if it was litigated regardless of bike tire width or speed. It's just so stupid that they would open up their policy to argue a ludacris liability decision

 

[skikid52]

@juliand We are being reasonable, but there are a lot of details missing from OP’s post, so we are having to infer a lot. I’m strictly going off my own claims handling experience. And no I don’t work for the Neighbor.

I fully agree the car’s insurance carrier is being a poor neighbor by assigning any more than 10% liability on the bicyclist. With additional info, a reasonable adjuster might even be inclined to throw all 100% on the left turning car, which (absent a dedicated turn arrow) will always be majority of liability. But with the limited details in the post and the location of the impact, a degree of shared liability exists.

 

[supernovak]

@spencer5150 Was hoping to avoid the attorney route - but the unanimous opinion here makes me think that may be the route I have to take. Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it

 

[maclove21]

@spencer5150 GEICO! Cunts.