Involved in accident, other insurance denies claim

[readercuthbert]

I'm curious how insurance claims and determining fault and financial responsibility works. Say 2 cars are opposite - across the street from each other coming out of 2 separate shopping malls. Car A turns left into the southbound left lane. Car B turns right into the southbound right lane (so both cars in the same direction). Somehow (and we're not clear how as both claim stayed in their lanes) they collide during (or immediately after) completing their turns. Car A (the left-turner) has right fender damage above the wheel with no frontal damage. Car B (the right-turner) has left corner (including front) damage. Police came and the report doesn't place fault at all - should they be the ones to determine that?

Car A calls their own insurance with a thorough description of facts only and to request a claim against Car B's insurance. Car B's insurance turns around and says Car A is at fault, based on Car B's own description of what happened and deny the claim.

1) Is Car A stuck with no recourse but to claim through their own insurance? It seems silly that all it took was Car B's own words to get them out of being liable...? And now Car A has their premium go up because of a need to claim.

2) What happened to 50/50 or 70/30 fault? And do premiums go up based on only a percentage, or goes up regardless of 20% fault vs. 100% fault.

3) If Car B never claims against Car A's insurance for their damage, doesn't that tell you they feel at fault to begin with?

 

[lindseyt]

@readercuthbert Police don't determine fault. They aren't civil judges.

If you have no evidence beyond your word, then yes, why would the other insurance company believe you over their client?

File with your insurance company and let them wrangle it out (subrogate) with the other driver's insurer.

 

[readercuthbert]

@lindseyt Well it is filed already and our adjuster isn't getting back to us very timely. I'm curious if they're just going to let it rest at the other insurance's decision or can they continue to go after them. Last thing our adjuster said to us was to claim through our own insurance next since the other side denied.

We provided clear pictures for a reason - to help them determine who hit who. I assume they should use those pictures to continue the back-and-forth... rather than just tell us to use our own insurance to claim and that'd be it.

 

[former32%C2%B0mason]

@readercuthbert That is it. Unless you have a dash cam video showing the actual crash, you have no evidence. Photos can't determine what happened, and they aren't going to hire CSI or an accident reconstructionist for a fender bender. Each company has a contract with their driver and believes their word unless there is actual evidence to the contrary.

If the situation were reversed, you would be livid if your company just decided not to believe you and ruled against you.

This is how it works. If it bothers you having to use your own coverage, get a dash cam.

 

[readercuthbert]

@former32%C2%B0mason Good to know there will actually be little done moving forward. I actually had to buy a new dashcam (which I'm installing today), because the one that was installed decided to capture only before (parked to go shopping) and after the accident (already hit and discussing it). I am guessing when it tried to auto-move the actual impact video, it lost it/never saved. Either that or it didn't start up and record in time. Very frustrating.

Any ideas about cost increases in our premium for something like this? Coincidentally we have a renewal in 2 weeks and they quoted us before this happened. Say we pay that quoted amount (pre-accident). Will that go higher because of this accident in the middle of an existing policy in effect? Maybe we hold off on the claim until after that starts if it matters?

 

[former32%C2%B0mason]

@readercuthbert I don't think you mentioned your location, but some states don't allow rate increases due to accidents that are not at fault. If you live in one that does allow it, there's no way to predict what it will be. Your company won't know either until your renewal is generated. Premiums are going up anyway.

 

[readercuthbert]

@former32%C2%B0mason NY. Yes our renewal quote was about $400 increase and that's still the cheapest quote.

Will an accident claim increase my cost in the middle of an existing policy, or only at another renewal? I'm pretty sure it's the latter but want to confirm. But if we do the claim now with a renewal on 3/8/24 looming, the quoted renewal cost from weeks back will go up or no?

 

[former32%C2%B0mason]

@readercuthbert No, they can't increase it due to the accident until your next renewal (in September).

 

[readercuthbert]

@former32%C2%B0mason I haven't paid my renewal yet - it was just a quote. Is that locked in even if I have them pay out to fix my car now before the renewal?

 

[former32%C2%B0mason]

@readercuthbert Yes. That is your price for the next term. It will not change based on this incident.

 

[vitagenlab]

@readercuthbert If it’s just your statements they will very likely choose not to pursue subrogation - just isn’t enough enough evidence to convince a neutral 3rd party for one side over another.

Think about it from what a neutral 3rd party would have a to decide. Based on everything do you think one side is, based on all available facts, most likely telling the truth?

 

[readercuthbert]

@vitagenlab My company had told me there's such a thing as 30/70% fault. I'm assuming it's not very common that one party pays out only a percentage of an estimate? They usually just pay for their own half in cases like these?

Any ideas about cost increases in our premium for something like this? Coincidentally we have a renewal in 2 weeks and they quoted us before this happened. Say we pay that quoted amount (pre-accident). Will that go higher because of this accident in the middle of an existing policy in effect? Maybe we hold off on the claim until after that starts if it matters?

 

[vitagenlab]

@readercuthbert Sure there can be liability anywhere between 0-100. But the split has to be accurate and based on the facts presented. I presume they’re defending you and saying the other driver is 100%?

Nobody can guess what will happen to your rates. Like even a rough guess could be way off. 20-50? Could be more depending on extent of damage.

 

[readercuthbert]

@vitagenlab Ok but it won't go up in the middle of an existing policy until renewal time comes again, correct?

Also your username caught my attention. Should I not also have comprehensive coverage for a car we fully own and valued at $6k? Deductible is like $100. Cost for comprehensive is $290 per 12 months.

 

[vitagenlab]

@readercuthbert Correct rates due to these things can only impact subsequent renewals. So even in that regard you’ll get a renewal notice about a month in advance and can rate shop if you don’t like what you see

 

[readercuthbert]

@vitagenlab If my renewal is in 15 days, and I put in to get everything fixed now through my insurance (maybe the claim already triggered it?), will they produce a new adjusted estimate for renewal or is the previous quote from a month ago locked in? I basically want to know if I should wait to have them pay me out / fix the car so it won't affect the renewal rate.

 

[a43]

@readercuthbert Assuming this southbound road is a 2 lane road, Car A crossed over into the right lane of the two (maybe not all the way but also perhaps didn’t see Car B so ‘barely crossed over’) but ultimately struck Car B that was turning right which is assumedly closer to them. The left turner is at fault because they had more distance to travel and more time to see Car B doing its right turn.

Just go through your insurance and let them handle the dispute

 

[readercuthbert]

@a43 2 lane road. Car B coming out of a 90-degree right turn also would potentially stick their left front fender out into the left lane. Is that not plausible? That's exactly where the damage is to Car B.

I've had plenty of times making a right turn out of a lot like that and decide to wait for left lane cars to pass me first since I don't want to encroach into their lane, or have them fear I would and pre-emptively brake / honk.

 

[a43]

@readercuthbert It’s more likely that Car A crossed over, being that people do that all the time. As a result it’s on Car A to prove it’s not what happened, because Car A is trying to convince Car B’s insurance.

 

[readercuthbert]

@a43 "People do that all the time" is the same reasoning for me that people make 90-degree right turns with their front-ends that protrude into the left lane, however. If your reasoning is that left lane turners always go into right lanes out of habit, why isn't that the case for cars making right turns going into left lanes out of habit?

If Car B tries to claim against Car A's insurance, would Car B have to prove they didn't protrude into the left lane with their right turn?