So glad she is unharmed. Older auto , not so sure. My son lucked out in a similar situation. He got lucky because the one who hit him admitted it and had the exact same insurance company. He got a check even though he only had the liability coverage. Now a days no one will admit the truth. We were actually shocked the lady admitted she was wrong.
I have heard of this umbrella personal coverage. How did you purchase? Thru auto insurance or a separate insurance company? Sure sounds like its a fair price for great coverage.
Comparative negligence and points of impact. This is where a dashcam removes doubt. Without independent witnesses its a he said she said situation.
If the red light runner has damage on the front of his car, and her car is damaged on the quarter panel, it's not rocket science to see who hit whom. Now if he is saying SHE ran the light, then it's a he said she said situation.
All depends on the statements and the state law. You are speculating based on 1 picture and with out any witnesses you can infer certain things. That why there are insurance adjuster I am one of those and have been doing auro claims since 2007. So unless you are involved in the claim and have all the evidence your statement is speculative based on assumtions, if this claim where to go to litigation general assumtions go out the window. It's what can be proven, not assumed or speculated.
Orientation of the vehicles proves nothing with respect to the status of the lights.
Done with your police rant? Where did Greg say the police didn't show up?
Huh? What's a trotter? What's a brake ventilator?
Guy said 60 delta, Looking at the damage, I would tend to think more at 30 mph, Rear glass was not shattered. My Wife Subaru was rear ended by a box truck doing about 35-40mph and the car was folded up to the back seat. Of course that was back in 2001.
Trotter is another way of saying "pig's hoof".
Why would you demand an ambulance if no one was hurt ? all that will result in is another bill and tying up a rig that may actually be needed for a real emergency. This isnt like TV where a team of highly trained investigators will spend a hundred hours and many thousands of dollars reconstructing a property damage accident. Most of the police officers I knew were lucky if they had time to get a meal and use the bathroom in between running from call to call.
That's their job. If they have a problem with it then they need to change careers. It's that very reason people like Greg's sister get f****d over by crooked insurance companies. Now she's out of a car and has to buy a new one because of some irresponsible dumbass that won't man up (or woman up) and admit fault to being a dumbass.
What would you recommend the police do to determine fault in a crash like this one? It seems the variable in question is the status of the lights at the time each vehicle entered the intersection. In the absence of video and unbiased witnesses (someone other than the involved drivers), where should CSI start?
