This will come down to sight distance and your wife's speed. We already know there was limited sight distance, so how fast was she driving?
Contesting finding of fault in a collision report
- Thread starter y_p_w
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
This will come down to sight distance and your wife's speed. We already know there was limited sight distance, so how fast was she driving?
My wife didn't actually say anything about that, but the assumption the report makes is that it was 20-25 MPH.
This will come down to sight distance and your wife's speed. We already know there was limited sight distance, so how fast was she driving?
My wife didn't actually say anything about that, but the assumption the report makes is that it was 20-25 MPH.
Insurance should not base their decision on the police report. The police report just states what the involved parties told the officer. The officer was not a witness to the actual accident. Take scene photos, photos of both vehicles, repair estimates, and the ca vehicle code book with u when u take the other driver to small claims court. It appears your wife did not violate any vehicle codes. The other driver did. Also file a complaint w the dept of insurance. They will investigate the insurance company for compliance.
Originally Posted By: tomcat27
if you get no other recourse, file a claim in small claims court. the cost is minimal. simply stick to the facts.
Most small claims courts don't deal in "negligence" cases, only unpaid bills and such.
if you get no other recourse, file a claim in small claims court. the cost is minimal. simply stick to the facts.
Most small claims courts don't deal in "negligence" cases, only unpaid bills and such.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: tomcat27
if you get no other recourse, file a claim in small claims court. the cost is minimal. simply stick to the facts.
Most small claims courts don't deal in "negligence" cases, only unpaid bills and such.
My wife doesn't have collision for this car. We're also in a bind since she had it towed to a body shop. Apparently my wife wanted it towed home, but the tow truck driver convinced her that it would look ugly to the neighbors. The body shop is now complaining that it's been in storage too long. She asked for an estimate so we might proceed on our own and then get reimbursed later, but they wouldn't do it without go-ahead from insurance. Insurance wouldn't give the go-ahead until the collision report was released.
Originally Posted By: tomcat27
if you get no other recourse, file a claim in small claims court. the cost is minimal. simply stick to the facts.
Most small claims courts don't deal in "negligence" cases, only unpaid bills and such.
My wife doesn't have collision for this car. We're also in a bind since she had it towed to a body shop. Apparently my wife wanted it towed home, but the tow truck driver convinced her that it would look ugly to the neighbors. The body shop is now complaining that it's been in storage too long. She asked for an estimate so we might proceed on our own and then get reimbursed later, but they wouldn't do it without go-ahead from insurance. Insurance wouldn't give the go-ahead until the collision report was released.
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Finally got home and got a look at the report. I'm actually a bit insulted by it. My wife didn't grow up in this country and the report claims there was a language barrier and she spoke "very broken English". It doesn't mention that the officer conducted his interview with the other driver in Spanish.
That part is unusual and the part that the blame was only on your wife and not split. I don't know if there are any ways to complain against the officer?
Finally got home and got a look at the report. I'm actually a bit insulted by it. My wife didn't grow up in this country and the report claims there was a language barrier and she spoke "very broken English". It doesn't mention that the officer conducted his interview with the other driver in Spanish.
That part is unusual and the part that the blame was only on your wife and not split. I don't know if there are any ways to complain against the officer?
No way your insurance company is going to pay out anything without a thorough review of the accident report. Bad call by law enforcement. Sorry to hear about your wife's accident. PITA
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
No way your insurance company is going to pay out anything without a thorough review of the accident report. Bad call by law enforcement. Sorry to hear about your wife's accident. PITA
My big beef is that the officer seems to be taking the side of the other driver, and from my wife's account that seemed obvious as soon as he arrived on the scene. Any mention of her language skills seems gratuitous, especially given that he didn't even make any mention that he conducted his interview with the other driver in Spanish.
And from the scene and just driving today (figuring out how much time to react at a given speed and distance), I'm thinking the other driver either saw or should have seen my wife coming and stayed put until she cleared. She isn't necessarily the best driver and might have been able to stop, but I know what it's like when someone just pulls out in front of you who theoretically should be yielding right of way.
No way your insurance company is going to pay out anything without a thorough review of the accident report. Bad call by law enforcement. Sorry to hear about your wife's accident. PITA
My big beef is that the officer seems to be taking the side of the other driver, and from my wife's account that seemed obvious as soon as he arrived on the scene. Any mention of her language skills seems gratuitous, especially given that he didn't even make any mention that he conducted his interview with the other driver in Spanish.
And from the scene and just driving today (figuring out how much time to react at a given speed and distance), I'm thinking the other driver either saw or should have seen my wife coming and stayed put until she cleared. She isn't necessarily the best driver and might have been able to stop, but I know what it's like when someone just pulls out in front of you who theoretically should be yielding right of way.
It seems very odd to me you haven't asked your wife what her speed was since it is a very critical part of this and could explain all the other questions you seem to have about the situation. You only seem to be curious about those factors that could either work in your favor or have no bearing on anything.
Originally Posted By: barkingspider
Insurance should not base their decision on the police report. The police report just states what the involved parties told the officer. The officer was not a witness to the actual accident. Take scene photos, photos of both vehicles, repair estimates, and the ca vehicle code book with u when u take the other driver to small claims court. It appears your wife did not violate any vehicle codes. The other driver did. Also file a complaint w the dept of insurance. They will investigate the insurance company for compliance.
Just a quick update.
I haven't been following the paper trail, but this morning I looked in the pile of stuff that's been collecting. Our auto insurance company forwarded a copy of the letter they sent to the other party in this claim. It sounds as if he or his insurance company (listed in CC with my wife and I think the business owner) attempted to file a claim directly against our insurance company. This is what it says specifically:
Specifically our investigation determined that [we] will be unable to pay any of your claim, as we have found you 100% at fault for this loss. For failing to yield the right of way to our insured vehicle.
There's also some interesting stuff about the police department (unrelated to our case), but I'll leave that for another day.
Insurance should not base their decision on the police report. The police report just states what the involved parties told the officer. The officer was not a witness to the actual accident. Take scene photos, photos of both vehicles, repair estimates, and the ca vehicle code book with u when u take the other driver to small claims court. It appears your wife did not violate any vehicle codes. The other driver did. Also file a complaint w the dept of insurance. They will investigate the insurance company for compliance.
Just a quick update.
I haven't been following the paper trail, but this morning I looked in the pile of stuff that's been collecting. Our auto insurance company forwarded a copy of the letter they sent to the other party in this claim. It sounds as if he or his insurance company (listed in CC with my wife and I think the business owner) attempted to file a claim directly against our insurance company. This is what it says specifically:
Specifically our investigation determined that [we] will be unable to pay any of your claim, as we have found you 100% at fault for this loss. For failing to yield the right of way to our insured vehicle.
There's also some interesting stuff about the police department (unrelated to our case), but I'll leave that for another day.
Additionally, the collision reports cites my wife as in violation of California Vehicle Code 21800(a). However, it sounds as if 21802(a) is the primary rule to look at, and if the cop thinks that she was at fault, he should have been citing 21802(b). Even so, my wife thinks that even with her coming from around a blind turn, there was no reason for him to not have seen her before leaving the stop sign.
Quote:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21800-21809
21800. (a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection
shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the
intersection from a different highway.
21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by
Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
or she can proceed with reasonable safety.
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may
proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other
approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle
entering or crossing the intersection.
I'm not even sure how we should proceed. We're already out just under $5000 for the repairs to her car. It's actually looking pretty nice now, especially with two brand new headlamp assemblies to replace to old scratched up ones. Certainly our insurance company believe that the other party is 100% at fault, but I'm not sure we can do the same for their insurance company. Since we don't have collision coverage on this car, our insurance company probably doesn't have much of an incentive to fight on our behalf.
Quote:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21800-21809
21800. (a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection
shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle which has entered the
intersection from a different highway.
21802. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the
entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop as required by
Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the right-of-way to any
vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are
approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and
shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he
or she can proceed with reasonable safety.
(b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a) may
proceed to enter the intersection, and the drivers of all other
approaching vehicles shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle
entering or crossing the intersection.
I'm not even sure how we should proceed. We're already out just under $5000 for the repairs to her car. It's actually looking pretty nice now, especially with two brand new headlamp assemblies to replace to old scratched up ones. Certainly our insurance company believe that the other party is 100% at fault, but I'm not sure we can do the same for their insurance company. Since we don't have collision coverage on this car, our insurance company probably doesn't have much of an incentive to fight on our behalf.
With no collision insurance, your recourse is to sue the other party for the cost of repairs to your vehicle. The court might assign you each a percentage of culpability for the accident. If the % of your wife's culpability multiplied by the cost of repairs to the dump truck exceeds $5000 you'll end up losing money when the dump truck's insurance company counter sues you.
Originally Posted By: Leo99
With no collision insurance, your recourse is to sue the other party for the cost of repairs to your vehicle. The court might assign you each a percentage of culpability for the accident. If the % of your wife's culpability multiplied by the cost of repairs to the dump truck exceeds $5000 you'll end up losing money when the dump truck's insurance company counter sues you.
I've been in situations where there was a slam dunk determination of fault in the collision report and not the kind of head scratcher that I saw and that our insurance company obviously disagreed with.
However, it's pretty clear that our insurance is really only looking after its own liability and won't devote its resources to us. And yeah - we get that taking their insurance to court might also open us to a countersuit, although I'm pretty sure that it would be a liability for our insurance company. Even so, we generally don't want to mess with that.
With no collision insurance, your recourse is to sue the other party for the cost of repairs to your vehicle. The court might assign you each a percentage of culpability for the accident. If the % of your wife's culpability multiplied by the cost of repairs to the dump truck exceeds $5000 you'll end up losing money when the dump truck's insurance company counter sues you.
I've been in situations where there was a slam dunk determination of fault in the collision report and not the kind of head scratcher that I saw and that our insurance company obviously disagreed with.
However, it's pretty clear that our insurance is really only looking after its own liability and won't devote its resources to us. And yeah - we get that taking their insurance to court might also open us to a countersuit, although I'm pretty sure that it would be a liability for our insurance company. Even so, we generally don't want to mess with that.
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Originally Posted By: Leo99
With no collision insurance, your recourse is to sue the other party for the cost of repairs to your vehicle. The court might assign you each a percentage of culpability for the accident. If the % of your wife's culpability multiplied by the cost of repairs to the dump truck exceeds $5000 you'll end up losing money when the dump truck's insurance company counter sues you.
I've been in situations where there was a slam dunk determination of fault in the collision report and not the kind of head scratcher that I saw and that our insurance company obviously disagreed with.
However, it's pretty clear that our insurance is really only looking after its own liability and won't devote its resources to us. And yeah - we get that taking their insurance to court might also open us to a countersuit, although I'm pretty sure that it would be a liability for our insurance company. Even so, we generally don't want to mess with that.
I'm confused why you think your insurance company would care about your situation. You didn't pay them to cover you in event of a collision. You didn't pay them but now you seem to want their help. It doesn't work that way. It's not a liability for your insurance company. Why would it be? It would only be a liability for your insurance company if there were bodily injuries. Thank goodness there were not any.
Just be glad there were no injuries and the dump truck didn't sue you for damages. Lesson learned. If you want the benefit of collision insurance, you have to pay for it.
Originally Posted By: Leo99
With no collision insurance, your recourse is to sue the other party for the cost of repairs to your vehicle. The court might assign you each a percentage of culpability for the accident. If the % of your wife's culpability multiplied by the cost of repairs to the dump truck exceeds $5000 you'll end up losing money when the dump truck's insurance company counter sues you.
I've been in situations where there was a slam dunk determination of fault in the collision report and not the kind of head scratcher that I saw and that our insurance company obviously disagreed with.
However, it's pretty clear that our insurance is really only looking after its own liability and won't devote its resources to us. And yeah - we get that taking their insurance to court might also open us to a countersuit, although I'm pretty sure that it would be a liability for our insurance company. Even so, we generally don't want to mess with that.
I'm confused why you think your insurance company would care about your situation. You didn't pay them to cover you in event of a collision. You didn't pay them but now you seem to want their help. It doesn't work that way. It's not a liability for your insurance company. Why would it be? It would only be a liability for your insurance company if there were bodily injuries. Thank goodness there were not any.
Just be glad there were no injuries and the dump truck didn't sue you for damages. Lesson learned. If you want the benefit of collision insurance, you have to pay for it.
Originally Posted By: Leo99
I'm confused why you think your insurance company would care about your situation. You didn't pay them to cover you in event of a collision. You didn't pay them but now you seem to want their help. It doesn't work that way. It's not a liability for your insurance company. Why would it be? It would only be a liability for your insurance company if there were bodily injuries. Thank goodness there were not any.
Just be glad there were no injuries and the dump truck didn't sue you for damages. Lesson learned. If you want the benefit of collision insurance, you have to pay for it.
I'm not confused about whether or not they care. I know the insurance company doesn't particular care in this case past their own interest in not having to pay for the damage to the truck. I've always had collision on my own cars, but my wife has always been cheap and would never get it for her own car. I'm just comparing it to the situations where I've had collision and my insurance company said to just get get it fixed and they'd sort it out.
And at this point I'm kind of worried that their insurance company is going to come after us, although the liability should be to our insurer. Mostly I'm worried about the hassle of going to court.
However, the whole situation of not having collision kind of screwed things up for us. It sounded like a slam dunk case in my wife's favor but nobody would process it until there was some sort of determination. The shop wouldn't even give her an estimate since they didn't know if they would be dealing with an insurance company or a private party (us). I've never had a situation where my car wasn't drivable and where I sat on the repair. The tow cost a bunch of money (driver told my wife it should be pretty easy to get reimbursed), and the body shop was threatening to charge for storage. It took six weeks for a fairly simple collision report. I've had a six car pileup where the collision report was ready in less than 10 days, but that was CHP.
She did make a bunch of mistakes - the first was having it towed to the body shop instead of to our home (and in the garage). My wife claims the driver recommended against it since it would "look bad" to our neighbors and that it would need to be towed again later. Also - it was minimally drivable, but the officers on the scene told her that she should have her car towed away since the bumper cover was hanging off at an odd angle.
I'm confused why you think your insurance company would care about your situation. You didn't pay them to cover you in event of a collision. You didn't pay them but now you seem to want their help. It doesn't work that way. It's not a liability for your insurance company. Why would it be? It would only be a liability for your insurance company if there were bodily injuries. Thank goodness there were not any.
Just be glad there were no injuries and the dump truck didn't sue you for damages. Lesson learned. If you want the benefit of collision insurance, you have to pay for it.
I'm not confused about whether or not they care. I know the insurance company doesn't particular care in this case past their own interest in not having to pay for the damage to the truck. I've always had collision on my own cars, but my wife has always been cheap and would never get it for her own car. I'm just comparing it to the situations where I've had collision and my insurance company said to just get get it fixed and they'd sort it out.
And at this point I'm kind of worried that their insurance company is going to come after us, although the liability should be to our insurer. Mostly I'm worried about the hassle of going to court.
However, the whole situation of not having collision kind of screwed things up for us. It sounded like a slam dunk case in my wife's favor but nobody would process it until there was some sort of determination. The shop wouldn't even give her an estimate since they didn't know if they would be dealing with an insurance company or a private party (us). I've never had a situation where my car wasn't drivable and where I sat on the repair. The tow cost a bunch of money (driver told my wife it should be pretty easy to get reimbursed), and the body shop was threatening to charge for storage. It took six weeks for a fairly simple collision report. I've had a six car pileup where the collision report was ready in less than 10 days, but that was CHP.
She did make a bunch of mistakes - the first was having it towed to the body shop instead of to our home (and in the garage). My wife claims the driver recommended against it since it would "look bad" to our neighbors and that it would need to be towed again later. Also - it was minimally drivable, but the officers on the scene told her that she should have her car towed away since the bumper cover was hanging off at an odd angle.
- Status
