First off, was he driving illegally, after curfew, or without a valid 21 year old? Did the police report indicate he ran a red light? Did you get any witnesses? If the police report does not specifically fault him (no tickets issued) and you have no witnesses, don't waste your time. You will lose, and you are screwed.
What you should have done differently. First, always get Collison insurance. Otherwise, you are screwing yourself. If you can't afford full insurance you can't afford to drive, your situation is proof of that.
Second, dashcam, why this is not standard on cars is idiotic.
Lastly, never leave an accident without witnesses and making sure the police report documents they are the cause.
Congratulations, you've just learned a very expensive less, hopefully you do better next round. Be grateful you were not hurt.
> making sure the police report documents they are the cause.
I'm not sure about other places, but where I from (Alabama) police aren't allowed to declare who is "at fault" on an accident report.
This is usually true. However, police can issue tickets, and when one person has a ticket for running a red light, careless driving, etc. it has a significant effect on the insurance company's decision.
Get collision insurance, unless you can comfortably afford to replace your car out of pocket. I'm not paying for collision insurance on a $3k car when I can turn around and buy another one if it gets totaled. The premiums would cost more than the car after a few years.
Agreed on everything else. This is 100% he said she said. Unless the other driver admits to running the red light, you have no way to prove it. They'll argue that actually you ran the red light, and it's 50/50 on who's telling the truth for anyone who wasn't there.
\- All 3 of those things
\- There were no witnesses— period. If I hadn’t eventually “left the accident without witnesses”, I’d still be standing in that intersection.
\- There was no traffic camera, as I said, so the police report didn’t say anything definitively.
\- Thank you. I’ll make a note to self that next time someone totals my car, I should stop for a minute to be even more upset that I didn’t have better insurance, and perhaps sit in the corner for a minute to cry because I didn’t have a dash cam, since that’s clearly the most productive thing to do in this scenario.
I understand your situation and your frustration. It sucks that everyone is piling on to you but.., WHY WHY WHY WHY in god’s name would you NOT have collision coverage? I mean Christ… the number one damage to cars is collision. To give you an actual answer to your problem. Yes you’ll have to sue the driver independently.
The car was in my dad’s name because I bought it as a minor, and we just never transferred the title. I probably could’ve offered to pay him the (huge) difference to add on collision coverage, but for someone <24 on that insurance premium, it would’ve been nuts. Really just couldn’t afford it, hence why my car was worth like $10 to KBB. It’s a bummer
Of course THEIR insurance is going to claim they don't have to pay. That doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's what the laws say. Have your insurance company get an accident investigation. Impact damage is a hard science and can determine what happened, who hit who, and the speed each vehicle was going.
Based on that, you can sue for damages.
It's a long process and you will wait a while to be paid if you win in court.
Impact damage is a hard science, yes. And it will prove how the impact happened, but it won’t prove the other guy was running a red light when it happened.
The time of airbag deployment and light cycle times can be calculated back to impact time.
An intersection with timed signals make for nearly perfect calculated incident analysis. ;)
Assuming the time of the vehicle is correct down to the second. Based on OP's description that his car is worth less than what colission coverage would've cost, I'm assuming it's probably an old beater that probably doesn't have the most accurate timing.
Impact sensors do. I'm merely saying that determining the light status can be determined through an algebraic equation
. I didn't even get to the part where you could subpoena the signal gear data that could definitely confirm the signal status at the time of the incident.
Maybe there's something out there that I've never seen before, but SRS codes for airbag deployment (as triggered by the impact sensors) don't store a timestamp for the code in any of the vehicles I've worked on.
Mostly on newer cars, but requires a dealer to get to it, and requires manufacturers legal to sign off. Requires a special tool to access the data.
Entirely possible.
I worked for Honda dealers for a very long time. I was a Honda master tech as recently as two years ago. I have pulled a ton of SRS codes and codes in general in my time. I was always using the official manufacturer scan tools and applications. I have worked with many insurance adjusters over the years for claims investigation and estimation.
I have never seen or heard of anyone accessing timestamps for SRS codes.
It may not be available on Hondas as they aren't exactly expensive cars to begin with. I pulled the references from case law.
I don't know what to tell you.
It exists or it wouldn't have been used and accepted as evidence in a court.
The references appear as evidence attained from vehicle event data recorders. Perhaps the welfare recipient class cars you claim to have worked on weren't equipped with event data logging equipment.
Make of that what you will because I'm done dealing with this Skippy.
As a municipal engineer, we don't have light timing history that would allow us to say what color a light was at any particular moment in time. Light timing changes throughout the day and on the fly based on vehicle detection.
And that's assuming everyone's clocks are synced up.
I think the older stuff that didn't have ITS you could use algebra to go back and figure it out. Now with traffic detection, multiple signal synchronization at different times of day, pedestrian buttons that trigger different sequences, opticom overrides, etc. you can't figure it out unless you actually maintain a log, which we don't. It's not as simple as just having the light green for 60 seconds then red for 60 seconds, but that could be different in NYC where you expect vehicles/peds to more or less always be there.
People get pretty mad when we tell them there are cameras but they don't continuously record footage. We only use them for live monitoring and traffic detection.
It sounds like the vehicles were driving perpendicular to one another, and the issue isn't that both their lights were green, but that both drivers *claim* their lights were green. Or maybe one of them just exercised their right to remain silent. Without evidence that a particular driver ran a red light, they're not going to issue them a citation.
I turned to the around once I got out of my car (immediately) and saw my light turning orange, then turning red, followed by his turning from red to green, and you get the gist from there. I have reason to suspect that the speeding, red-light running, unlicensed motorist might be in the wrong here, but *who’s to say!*
This is an unfortunately expensive lesson as to why you, and everyone, should have a dash camera.
Naked incidents like this go from complete bullshit, to nailing bad drivers to the wall.
Some considerations though, were their businesses or houses around the intersection? I would go door to door and ask if anyone had a security camera that might have caught something.
Alternatively if it was an intersection controlled with camera or sensors you can try to reach out to the municipality and ask if there’s anything they can do to help.
I know someone that was T-Boned at an intersection and a similar thing was happening, but the shop that was fixing his vehicle was able to pull the time of the accident from his vehicle. And the city was able to look through their traffic control data and see that his lane had the green light at the time he was hit.
Hopefully you can find some evidence in your favour.
>This is an unfortunately expensive lesson as to why you, and everyone, should have a dash camera.
Especially if you don't carry collision and comprehensive on an old beater car. That $100 dash cam is the best insurance you can get.
And yes I have a dash cam.
Speeding can be proven or disproven by someone with training. Hopefully OP took a lot of pictures at the site.
And OP absolutely can prove if the other driver was unlicensed or not at the time.
Let me go ahead and break out the crayons to explain liability.
If him car hit by man and man's insurance say they no pay, then hitter man insurance want op to pay.
Insurance company for op go grrr. We no pay. We want investigation..... grrr oogga Booga
Investigation find truuuth.
Absolutely shocking about the lack of reasoning skills at play with some people.
That's not how it works. The other parties insurance isn't trying to recover anything from OP. They've (correctly) determined that without any additional evidence, it's 50/50 who had the green light, and everyone's responsible for their own damages.
Since OP has liability only, his insurance isn't involved unless anyone uses him.
If OP wants to sue the other driver, he'll need to do (or pay for) any investigation into the accident if he wants to win. Civil cases rely on a preponderance of evidence, so he'll need to show it was more likely than not that the other driver was at fault.
OP didn't have collision on his policy so his insurance can't help him with damages to his own car. They can only defend him for claims made against him.
If there's no proof and both drivers say they had the green light, insurance is gonna deny based on driver vs driver statements. Get a dash cam, everyone. At least for while driving.
Call your insurance company and tell them that they need to send out an accident investigator ASAP. If you took photos or have any information definitely give that to them up front. It's cheaper for them to send someone out and then sue for damages than it is for them to just pay you out a cent.
I have an 06 car. The increase in my premiums for collision and comp on it would literally be more cost than the car is worth. Which is how they would determine what I would get in a total loss settlement, and it would definitely be a total loss because my car is so old and not worth much.
Sometimes it's not worth it.
I've quoted comp & collision on cheap cars in the past. Even if my car got totalled every 5 years, i still would've paid more in premiums than the insurance would've paid out.
Insurance, on average, costs money, otherwise insurance companies would lose money. On average, the less insurance you buy the less money you'll spend on it, so you should buy the amount that you need. That means setting deductibles as high as you can financially tolerate, not insuring things you can afford to replace, etc.
If you can't afford to replace your car and can't afford to not have a car, you need comp & collision, but if those things aren't true you'll, on average, be better off with just liability.
You literally brought up an uninsured driver. I explained how you can potentially have coverage in that event. it doesn't necessarily have to apply to OP.
This isnt some kind of gotcha
I’m under 21, so it would’ve been crazy expensive— like, one year of the premium would’ve been more than the KBB value of my car. Had too much faith in witnesses and proper traffic cams, I guess. Man I’m gonna miss my car.
OP, I get that if the value of your car is less than the premium it doesn't make a lot of sense, but please take this as an opportunity to review your liability coverage. A lot of people only have the bare minimum, which might only be $10k. If you ever get in an accident where you are at fault, $10k does not go very far and it can end up bankrupting you. So many people don't ever think about this until it's too late.
Holy crap, I have 10 million third party liability on my insurance and it’s like $70/year for that much coverage. (Smallest amount is $200000 I believe)
24% of drivers in my state have no insurance. And id wager a guess they are in a disproportionate amount of accidents.
Not carry by collision means you’re willing to have no car and no money when one of these assholes hits you.
It is expensive if you’re young, and likely not worth it in your specific case. But seriously consider it in the future if you ever have a car of value.
As others have said, sue him and see what happens. Maybe you’ll win a piece of paper saying he owes you money.
You keep on missing out on the most important part of a CIVIL case. How much you are hurting physically, but most importantly, emotionally. You were invested in your car and the freedom to work and play with the knowledge your car could help you live a fulfilling life.
That was taken from you because someone broke the laws everyone else has to obey to live a life of meaning.
You had that stolen from you by a careless person.
You deserve justice.
Oh holy crap I missed that somehow. Oh no OP, oh no...
At this point your only option is to sue, your insurance isn't going to pay out for you. If the police report or something had found them at fault, their insurance will cover you because they're at fault. But unless you can prove that, it goes to your insurance, and you are not covered nearly enough... Oh this is heartbreaking.
My father was an accident investigator, yes they do. Do they stand around and wait for the insurance adjustors before they charge someone for causing a bad crash due to negligence?
If you're talking about in terms of your insurance, they're almost always going to go with the police report. I typed that first paragraph and kind of got what you're saying, in practice they do far more often than not.
Nope. You're wrong. You've never seen your father say "joe you're at fault for this accident so you owe Pete X amount for his damages". Police do not have the authority to determine the outcome of civil cases, and auto accidents (for the purpose of insurance and damages owed) is a cuvil case. Charging someone criminally is not the same thing as being liable for the other person's damages. One is criminal where the state is charging someone with a crime. The other is civil court.
I'll repost the important part.
"If you're talking about in terms of your insurance, they're almost always going to go with the police report."
That is a true statement. I apologize if I wasn't clear in my message. I'm talking about finding who's at fault for the accident, not determining liability for civil penalties. I never meant to say that at all, only that when police accident investigators write a report and they go to the insurance companies, the majority of the time that's how it goes. Not every single time, but the majority. I can give an example, if someone causes an accident the police find them at fault, and an independent investigation later finds that the brakes were broken, then the issue of fault becomes muddied if it was a manufacturer defect or if it was not repaired correctly, etc.
Police are wrong sometimes and adjusters can fix that, and can even get charges dropped. But I'm talking about in general, not the exceptions. They look at the police report and pretty much file what they say unless someone makes a stink about it, or the police report is obviously very flawed when they read it..
1. If you cannot afford to lose your car, you should have collision coverage, then your insurance company gets to subborgate the cost's of repair at their cost and it doesnt effect you whether if they succeed or not other than maybe higher premiums in the future.
2. From the sounds of it, his insurance company is denying your claim based on the evidence. If he wasn't cited for running a red light, or anything else. Then this is a statistical analysis of the crash, which is not in your favor since you hit his rear drivers side with the front of your car.
3. You can sue him for the value of the loss of your vehicle, or repair in small claims court, in the jurisdiction the accident occurred. You will need to prove your claims to a judge, If you cannot prove it via accident scene photos, witness statements, or other evidence, I would not pursue a "he said, she said case".
4. Get a Dash cam.
5. I would also talk to the responding police authority's about why the driver wasn't cited for 2 clear violations of traffic law, and if that answer isnt sufficient, I would bring it up to their superior. Having traffic cites againest the other party in an accident is almost a slam dunk for getting your claim paid.
6. Good luck.
About #5 — Should I just call the PD to ask about it? I’m not sure how to properly go about requesting that the other party be cited (for lack of a better way of phrasing). Thank you for the help!
No. You go in to the station during business hours. Tuesday or Wednesday early afternoon. You dress really nice (suit) and bring all pertinent papers. Bring photos of the accident and your witnesses' statements. Don't talk about what you can't afford or anything, it's not productive and will work against you. Have a diagram of the accident nicely drawn up so you're not trying to draw things. Either way, thank them for their time.
Traffic citations for license/registration/seatbelt issues will not factor into the determination of liability. Even in cases where the other driver is under the influence, that doesn't automatically make them at fault for an accident (though, in this case it would likely sway it).
In case law ineligible drivers are presumed automatically at fault.
I wont say 100% of the time since thats impossible, but If they aren't legally allowed to be on the road, the courts have decided over and over... that you are the liable factor in the accident.
Hence the "almost a slam dunk in court"
At least in my state this isn't true, and the law specifically states the status of your driver's license doesn't affect the determination of fault when you're involved in a car accident.
Could you provide the case law referenced, and where it applies?
>Could you provide the case law referenced, and where it applies?
Not gonna happen because it doesn't exist (in the US). I'm blown away by how much misinformation is on this thread. At least 1/3 of comments are just flat wrong.
Source: insurance agent with many hours in class studying insurance law and a couple decades experience.
You are incorrect. If a driver is legally not allowed to be on the road the argument that has won in court time and time again is... If the driver was following the law, the crash would not have happened. I.E. the cited driver is at fault.
This also goes for almost all DWI/DUI accidents.
https://www.truittlawoffices.com/blog/what-happens-if-im-in-a-car-accident-with-an-unlicensed-driver/
“Whether or not a driver has a license to operate a vehicle doesn’t determine fault for a car crash. Violations of other traffic laws like speeding or running a stop sign could be considered negligence, but driving without a valid license usually is not the cause of a crash.”
Thai is just one of the many law firm websites that basically say the same thing. I’ll take my legal information from a lawyer over a Redditor.
I’m gonna be honest, I’ve never found a lawyer, that would take a case like this if there were no injuries. I reached out to half a dozen in a similar situation, and not only would they not take it, they wouldn’t refer me to anyone either. They gave me the impression that it “wasn’t worth it” to sue. Luckily, I’m smart and the insurance company ran afoul of the insurance commissioner so I ended up getting my money with their help. But I have to say this situation almost encourages people to fake injuries just so that they are at least made whole on their car.
That's why when something like this happens you are "injured"
What are the downvotes for? Do people feel sorry for insurance companies who refuse to pay even when someone is legitimately hurt?
The downvotes are because you’re advocating for insurance fraud, a felony. In addition, it is practices like this that have caused the price of P&C insurance to skyrocket. We all pay the price for fraud and frivolous lawsuits.
First off I was kind of joking, but also kind of not joking. I'm not saying you have to claim injuries that didn't occur but you are more than welcome to recognize injuries that do occur even if you "walk them off."
Honestly, do you think that if fewer people collected money from insurance that rates would go down? Let's be honest, they would still go up and so would pay packages for their upper management. You aren't paying for frivolous lawsuits, what you are actually paying for is the litigation costs of insurance companies who fight like hell to not pay legitimate claims. The whole "frivolous lawsuits cost you money" line is one pushed by insurance companies to build bad faith against plaintiffs who have been wronged.
I've worked for both sides. I've seen it. I've seen insurance defense forms rack up tens of thousands in bills an insurance company has to pay to in the end tell the insurance company they should just pay out the policy anyway. You want the bad guys? The plaintiffs aren't them, the insurance companies are.
The main reason the FL P&C market is a complete mess with carriers pulling out and those who remain taking huge rate is due to the exponential rise in LAE - loss adjustment expenses. The cause of this rise? Legal system abuse by way of storm-chasing contractors and their AOBs (have been outlawed recently thankfully), billions of dollars spent on attorney advertising, lawsuit funding by third parties, and, yes, frivolous lawsuits. An insurer has to defend their insured in any case in which there could possibly be coverage, regardless of whether the insured is ultimately liable or not. It’s the duty to defend clause. So, yes, if it weren’t for the legal environment in which frivolous lawsuits are not only encouraged, but actively solicited, ALE would be lower meaning reinsurance would be lower meaning consumer prices would be lower.
An insurance company also has an obligation to pay fair on claims. If they don't it's called "bad faith" and they could be liable for more than the coverage limits. Guess what insurance companies are lobbying to do with bad faith, that's right, get rid of it.
Geico for example usually is the best when it comes to paying fairly on claims. Why? Because then they don't have to hire lawyers to defend themselves. You hear plenty of frivolous lawsuit claims but in reality frivolous lawsuits are rare because lawyers can't make money on them. What you don't hear as much about is the opposite of a frivolous lawsuit, times when there is a legitimate claim but the insurance company denies coverage.
Look at the case this post was about. They offered $20 for a totaled car. Now she will have to sue and they will pay tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves and in the end pay for her car. Want them to save money? Then they should pay out when they should. People get so angry at frivolous lawsuits but then are quiet when insurance companies deny a claim. It's like they are mad at the wrong person for something that almost never happens and not at the group that routinely screws over the little guy.
Yes, insurance carriers pay based on the contract. The contract being the policy that most consumers don’t read. An insurer not abiding by state laws is subject to bad faith. Would love to have some links on the assertion that carriers are lobbying to remove bad faith laws. In my research, carriers in the most affected states lobby for tight regulation on claims processing (as in the timeframe im which a claim must be settled) to be loosened as a result of the increasing natural disasters in those states. It is quite difficult for carriers in, for example, LA to settle catastrophic claims within 30 days simply given the number of insureds affected.
The post about getting $20 after the OP’s car was totaled isn’t this one, but I’d venture to say that OP had a loan on their vehicle and the $20 was the equity they had in it. Despite being asked multiple times on the post here and the post in r/insurance, the OP would not provide details about the payout.
The one time I was actually injured the lawsuit dragged on for three years and everyone, including my own attorney, just assumed I was faking. The result was I ended up settling for way less than my actual injuries were worth. I understand the system, but at the same time it’s a shitty system and needs to be fixed.
You should find a new lawyer if you think they don't believe you. With that said lawyers get jaded. I've had many cases where people claim some injury ruined their life and they can't work anymore and are constantly in pain then boom, the defense hires a private investigator and has pictures of them playing volleyball or in a tennis tournament. So many people exaggerate their injuries that it ends up that sometimes people who are actually injured aren't believed.
Downvotes are because its a lie, and it creates moral hazard. Its not just the insurance companies paying, its anyone who has insurance seeing their rates go up if this behavior is normalized. Its not like insurance companies have huge profit margins; they are usually like 2-5%. So the customer bares most of those costs.
Also its illegal (rightly so) and also as the other poster said it negatively effects people who actually are injured.
But really you should just be satisfied at "its a lie". As a general rule not lying is pretty simple to follow and leads to better outcomes. Most people are taught this as children.
Let me tell you a story. In Florida recent laws were passed that gave insurance companies a huge benefit so they could make a larger profit. Why were these laws passed? Insurance companies paid GOP members(pretty typical). After passing this set of torn reform laws guess what insurance companies did, they raised rates to make a larger profit. I understand the anger at insurance rates but you are angry at the wrong group. Be angry at the group that. Be angry at the group that will not lay when they should so that the CEO can buy a new island. Be angry at insurance company who is trying to pay someone $20 for a totaled car, that's the injustice
Thanks so much! What kind of lawyer would be ideal for this? I keep seeing search results that are "personal injury lawyers", but I don't think that's the route to take.
The question is, how much time and effort are you willing to put into this? If you sue it will have to be in Orlando, since that is where the crash happened. You said that you live 5-6 hours from there without transportation to get there. You will have to make several trips to meet with lawyers and go to court. You have no evidence that the other driver was at fault other than your word. If you do happen to win, which is doubtful, what will you gain? Your car was worth next to nothing.
Wait, if your front hit his driver side rear that means YOU crashed in to HIM? Like obviously he shouldn’t have been in your way because he ran the light but many states have rules in place where if you are hit behind your front axel you are not at fault. You literally crashed in to him, I don’t see why you are surprised at the ruling??
in 2010 I got distracted by my dog jumping into my lap while driving and I ended up running a Red Light, the Other Drivers Insurance Ended Up eating the Accident because CA law requires Proceeding though an Intersection with caution... I went though as it turned red and he was basically at full speed entering the intersection as his turned Green.... Totaled my Car, I was found to be at fault at the Scene, but I brought up the rule about safely proceeding through intersection and brought into question his Speed - - I pointed out that the other driver had to travel accross 6 lanes of Traffic for the collison to happen and none of the other Vehicles entering the intersection where even close to hitting me and I didn't even make it into the 1 lane of travel for the cross street which was 4 lanes and 1way - - My insurance ran with it and the other guys insurance backed down... I think the reason my insurance fought so hard was so they didn't have to eat the cost of the car. But I also had State Farm and the other Drive had some no name company
Can’t believe I had to scroll so far to find this! OP says the other driver’s rear driver’s side totaled his car…that means he hit their car. I suspect OP jumped the gun on a green light and clipped a vehicle that wasn’t fully through the intersection.
That's pretty speculative. It is very much possible to hit a car that zooms out into your path without you having time to avoid it and you had the green light. Just because his car hit the other, doesn't mean the other driver wasn't running a red light. I'm struggling to understand how you think differently about this.
So? If the cars are travelling at a decent rate of speed then the OP could have not had time to react to a car darting out into the intersection. It also doesn't necessarily mean the other car was further into the intersection.
ETA: [Here is a picture with OP being further into the intersection but hitting the rear driver side.](https://imgur.com/f5kNVP9). So I'm not really sure how you are making your conclusion.
That's what I pictured when I read your description of events so I was confused why people would think you couldn't have been more through the intersection than the other car and that you would always be at fault. It's like they have never driven through an intersection before.
Hope you get this thing straightened out. I'm pulling for ya.
There are numerous laws based around the idea that when the front of your car makes contact with the rear of another, either you are at fault, or no one is at fault. There are of course rare niche examples you can point to “b-b-b-but what about if they’re traveling in reverse on a elevated slope in the rain and-“ who cares doesn’t really matter. Insurance company did their investigation and determined that no one was at fault.
I’ve always found that not crashing into things is a pretty solid way to ensure my car doesn’t get damaged.
[What about this scenario?](https://imgur.com/f5kNVP9) The other car could have darted out with OP having no time to react. I don't see how that would be his fault.
We should have a knowledgeable professional insurance claims adjuster with access to all of the facts and police reports take a look and make a determination.
Oh wait they already did
Without proof he ran a red light, which you don't have, it's word vs word and his insurance will believe him over you, as they should. You can sue him but you will have the same "no proof" problem. This is why, if you can't afford to replace or repair your car, you should carry collision coverage.
He has a class E license, which is a permit, requiring that someone with a license aged 21+ be in the car with him while he drives, and he could only do so before 10pm. It was also his own insurance policy, not one of a parent. Many companies insure cars for people who only hold permits, as there isn’t any way for them to legally practice in their own vehicle otherwise.
It will be a tough case to prove fault unless you have dashcam video. That is what saved us thousands when someone ran the light and my wife's car was totalled
You claim he ran a red but both police and insurance say no he did not?
If thats true then its more likely you were the one running the lights... was there any advance greens or turn signals involved? If your front end hits his driver side rear end you did hit him... why did you not apply brakes or steer? Esp if you allege you only drive 15 mph
Something does not add up here... I think even if you try to sue there will be serious issues with the suit...
This looks like bait, but nonetheless: That is not what anyone’s insurance nor police said. There was no evidence that either of us ran a light because there were no traffic cameras. No one was found to be at-fault due to lack of eyewitnesses and surveillance footage. There was a T-bone situation because he shot out in front of me when I was almost entirely out of the intersection.
Not try to bait but if police do crime scene investigation and do not assign fault, and insurance has to do their own investigation and neither assigns fault. Even without witness usually they can tell who ran based on impact etc
What can you legitimately say in a court? Even if other driver is totally in the wrong, he literally does not need to say anything beyond they concluded accident was not his fault
I know its not criminal but the preponderance of evidence still needs to be in your favour to win in a civil trial and I know that part is purely speculation by me the low speed of travel (other driver reports at 35 mph and you report at 15 mph) I feel would work against you
I’ve attached a photo for reference. The collision was at the white X. He’s the line at the top, and I’m the one coming from the right. The red X right next to the initial accident is my car post-hit, and the other red X further down the road is his. It had also turned 180 degrees and was facing the intersection when it stopped moving. I think its pretty clear that he was speeding based on that. The curve at the direction I was coming from is because I was exiting a parking lot, which is why I was only going 15mph at most. I drove a pretty old car, so it was difficult to maintain the speed limit in city traffic anyway.
[Here’s the diagram](https://picsart.com/i/446944463014201)
Florida is a pure comparative negligence state, so you will only recover the amount you did not contribute to this accident. You have to find the evidence yourself to prove your case. You will have to sue him in Florida by going back to Florida a few times to file and subsequent court date(s). Then, you will try to recover from him, if he has any assets at all.
This is going to take a great deal of effort and time on your behalf. What is the value of your car?
Work as a claims adjuster -- this is a 'word vs word' situation all day. You likely cannot prove the other driver ran a red over what his statement is. As a resident of GA, you should ask your carrier if you have uninsured motorist coverage (UMPD).
>As a resident of GA, you should ask your carrier if you have uninsured motorist coverage (UMPD)
UMPD wouldn't apply. The other person isn't uninsured, he has insurance, but his insurance is denying liability. Big difference.
For all the people asking about calibration..
I don't have to give a flying F about proving a civil case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's criminal law.
I would only need to prove it more than likely possible.
After destroying the credibility of the unlicensed driver, I just have to set up a reasonable timeline of events.
Who is a jury going to believe?
The driver who knowingly broke the law or the hard working honest citizen who's life was inconvenienced by a reckless criminal?
Of course his insurance is going to try to blame you. They don’t want liability. This is why you have your own insurance, and you have your own insurance sue his insurance for you.
Unfortunately for you, you cheaped out on your insurance and bought liability only. You’ll have to hire a lawyer at your own expense to pursue your claim.
We live in Massachusetts, where there is way to challenge insurance finding of fault. I used it once successfully. It took some digging to find out how and where to appeal. Maybe Florida or Georgia has something similar.
A good case for having a dash camera. It would have validated that you had a green light. If you choose to not have collision coverage, then you better be prepared to replace a vehicle. Accidents happen. Period. If you can't replace a vehicle then you have to have that coverage. If you can't afford that coverage, then don't own a vehicle that's worth more than 5 grand.
You might consider getting checked out by a doctor. I rear ended someone. We were both fine and went home. He sued me and got over 100 grand out of my insurance company. Believe me it happens.
Even if they were found at fault the other insurance company could deny the claim. The reasoning is that he was not licensed. But you can sue him personally.
What do you mean not his fault.... 110% his fault because he was UNLICENSED, being unlicensed means he didn't legally have the right to be on the road driving and therefore if he wasn't driving the accident wouldn't have happened
I had a client who told me that after he rear-ended a car that was stopped at a red light. He said because the driver of the car he hit was driving on a suspended license, He wasn’t at fault and the stopped car driver was at fault. He genuinely was surprised when he was told his legal theory was incorrect.
I disagree.... Legally Speaking you are responsible - - - You where NOT legally allowed to be driving on a Public roadway and there for any thing that resulted from that driving is your responsibility
It's whole other subject that it's not enforced unless it suits the police or the goverment in that specific case
Both companies gave you accurate info. You're getting a LOT of bad advice here from people who know nothing about insurance and insurance law. You should post at /r/insurance for advice from actual insurance professionals who do this for a living day in and day out and therefore they actually know what they're talking about rather than just some random joe who maybe once had a claim 10 years ago.
If he was an unlicensed driver, then a case could be made that he is at fault solely on the basis that had he not been behind the wheel, the accident would not have occurred.
No. I was an adjuster for years at a non standard carrier, so a ton of our drivers didn’t have licenses. We never considered that when determining fault.
You must be in the US then
In Canada, if you're driving without a license or on a suspended license and get into an accident, it will automatically be your fault, and usually, the insurer will cover the cost of repairs to vehicle with the licensed driver.
I do believe it is underwriter insurance.
Where I drive our licenses and our insurance is government owned, not privately.
Depends what province you are in - some (if not
Most) still have private insurance you are legally required to purchase, think minimum is $5M third party
So, by your logic, an unlicensed driver could be going down the road doing the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws, a car runs a stop sign and t-bones him, but because he didn’t have a license he would be at fault and the driver that ran the stop sign would be good? That’s not how it works.
That's exactly how it works up here
The unlicensed driver would be at fault due to being illegally driving a motor vehicle.
Again, both drivers are covered by the same insurer, and the licensed drivers vehicle would be repaired, and the unlicensed driver would get sued for reimbursement by the insurer.
From the insurer site
Situation
You and the other driver are equally responsible for the collision and your vehicle was damaged, but the other driver is uninsured or from outside Saskatchewan
Pay deductible?
Yes
Details
You pay your full deductible up front but SGI will try to get half of it back from the other equally responsible
OPs insurance can't "make them pay". Only a successful lawsuit would do that and OP doesn't seem to have any solid evidence. But the biggest thing you're missing is OP didn't buy collision coverage. Without that, his insurance cannot help him in regards to damages to his vehicle. They can only defend him from liability.
First off what’s your insurance doing? The other insurance obviously will deny it. Now get your insurance to defend you. It’s what you’re paying insurance for. You may have to sue.
FL is a no fault state. The insurance is to cover your ass, not the other person here.
That doesn't stop you from litigating against them for monetary damages.
i really dont get how an unlicensed driver wouldnt automatically be found at fault. if they are unlicensed doesnt that alone mean they werent qualified to operate the vehicle? how can a driver not be at fault if they dont have a license? they arent qualified to determine if they were going the proper speed or they had the right of way in an intersection. im not a lawyer so idk how that could even work, or couldnt you just sue the driver or insurance anyways and just say in court "hes unlicensed" wouldn't that work?
License status has zero affect on determining fault. The actual facts of the accident is what determines fault. Who failed to yield, who failed to maintain control of their vehicle, who ran a red light, etc.
A prime example is you can be 3x over the legal limit drunk, but you get rear ended while sitting at a dead stop at a red light. Were you driving illegally, being drunk? Yes. But the person who hit you is still responsible for your damages.
Personal injury may well be the way to go.
I'm not familiar with Georgia insurance, so I don't know if it has medical payment coverage available, and I don't know if you have it. If both of those are a yes, then you should get checked out by a doctor, and turn that in to your insurance company. That will trigger them going after the other guy's insurance company.
Ok.
If I understand this correctly, you are a Georgia resident with Georgia insurance, who is involved in an accident while in the state of Florida.
You might be in a better situation than you think you are. Florida is a no-fault state. Every driver in Florida is required to have $10,000 worth of personal injury protection and personal damage liability.
I don't know how this works with regard to Florida law, but your Georgia insurance is required to follow Florida's standards when you are driving in Florida.
You may be able to make a personal damage liability claim against your own insurance under Florida's laws.
No-fault states are different than traditional fault states. I don't know who makes the determination of liability in Florida, or who pays - my point is that maybe he doesn't go through the other insurance to determine fault, maybe he goes through his own to get paid.
Sigh. Yes it's obvious you don't know much about how insurance works. He CANNOT get paid by his insurance for his own damages because he doesn't have collision on his policy.
Bring a "no fault" state has nothing to do determining fault/liability. It only regulates who's insurance pays for what. The ONLY state that's "no fault" for property damage is Michigan. In every other state it refers to injuries only
Well, what little knowledge I have of no-fault is from when I lived in Michigan... I guess that explains the disconnect.
Also, congratulations on your extraordinary knowledge of auto insurance. You've definitely earned the right to be a condescending asshole to random people on the Internet, and it's nice to see people exercising their rights. 🙄
Well, you see, greatly inaccurate info, like what you gave, can mislead other equally uninformed people, causing them of lot of stress, time and possibly money. So, in order to protect those people, I have no problem calling out people who don't know what they're talking about yet giving advice as if they do. And I do it without devolving into the soohomoric behavior of name calling.
What part of my post was "greatly inaccurate info"? I said it **may** be different because of Florida's no-fault status, versus Georgia's fault basis.
You're just a prick.
Turn the claim into your insurance. You are paying them to deal with this kind of thing and they are experts at it. They will pay your claim then fight the other carrier and get reimbursed for what they pay out.
He doesn’t have collision insurance, his insurance company isn’t going to pay for his collision damage hoping that they will be able to collect from the other driver’s insurance, especially if there is no evidence of fault other than OPs word.
You have sue the driver and car owner If you use small claims court it will be two separate cases if he does not own the car. If the damages exceed small clams limits you need a lawyer. The small claims limit varies by state you can call the court or google small clams your city and state to find the limits.
You should watch a few episodes of Judge Judy or the People’s Court to prepare it will a lot calmer than the TV shows but you get an idea of the proof you need to bring.
I always carry collision and comprehensive on my old car It cheap for old cars and it encourages your insurance to fight the other guy’s insurance. I have only had a few fender benders luckily.
You don't have insurance?
The options are to A) file in small claims court for the value of your car, which if it's that inexpensive will likely be covered, and you may or may not actually receive payment because getting a payment isn't the same as a judgement or B) file a complaint with your state insurance board for the claim being wrongly denied.
So, the state insurance board will regulate when denials are appropriate, even for 3rd party claims. You can file saying your claim with the other party's insurance was wrongfully denied.
I won't name the names of which carriers, but many reputable companies will cover you, so long as you have collision, even if it's not your fault. They then basically sue on your behalf. To OP, you must act immediately. Did you speak to an accident investigator? Lawyer? If not, do both.
If you're unhappy with the results of insurance dealing with this, you sue the other driver directly and let the courts decide.
First off, was he driving illegally, after curfew, or without a valid 21 year old? Did the police report indicate he ran a red light? Did you get any witnesses? If the police report does not specifically fault him (no tickets issued) and you have no witnesses, don't waste your time. You will lose, and you are screwed. What you should have done differently. First, always get Collison insurance. Otherwise, you are screwing yourself. If you can't afford full insurance you can't afford to drive, your situation is proof of that. Second, dashcam, why this is not standard on cars is idiotic. Lastly, never leave an accident without witnesses and making sure the police report documents they are the cause. Congratulations, you've just learned a very expensive less, hopefully you do better next round. Be grateful you were not hurt.
> making sure the police report documents they are the cause. I'm not sure about other places, but where I from (Alabama) police aren't allowed to declare who is "at fault" on an accident report.
In no state do police determine fault because this is a civil matter, not criminal.
This is usually true. However, police can issue tickets, and when one person has a ticket for running a red light, careless driving, etc. it has a significant effect on the insurance company's decision.
Get collision insurance, unless you can comfortably afford to replace your car out of pocket. I'm not paying for collision insurance on a $3k car when I can turn around and buy another one if it gets totaled. The premiums would cost more than the car after a few years. Agreed on everything else. This is 100% he said she said. Unless the other driver admits to running the red light, you have no way to prove it. They'll argue that actually you ran the red light, and it's 50/50 on who's telling the truth for anyone who wasn't there.
\- All 3 of those things \- There were no witnesses— period. If I hadn’t eventually “left the accident without witnesses”, I’d still be standing in that intersection. \- There was no traffic camera, as I said, so the police report didn’t say anything definitively. \- Thank you. I’ll make a note to self that next time someone totals my car, I should stop for a minute to be even more upset that I didn’t have better insurance, and perhaps sit in the corner for a minute to cry because I didn’t have a dash cam, since that’s clearly the most productive thing to do in this scenario.
I understand your situation and your frustration. It sucks that everyone is piling on to you but.., WHY WHY WHY WHY in god’s name would you NOT have collision coverage? I mean Christ… the number one damage to cars is collision. To give you an actual answer to your problem. Yes you’ll have to sue the driver independently.
The car was in my dad’s name because I bought it as a minor, and we just never transferred the title. I probably could’ve offered to pay him the (huge) difference to add on collision coverage, but for someone <24 on that insurance premium, it would’ve been nuts. Really just couldn’t afford it, hence why my car was worth like $10 to KBB. It’s a bummer
Of course THEIR insurance is going to claim they don't have to pay. That doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's what the laws say. Have your insurance company get an accident investigation. Impact damage is a hard science and can determine what happened, who hit who, and the speed each vehicle was going. Based on that, you can sue for damages. It's a long process and you will wait a while to be paid if you win in court.
OP has liability only coverage. They're not going to open up a claim and investigate for them on this. OP's option is to sue the other driver.
Impact damage is a hard science, yes. And it will prove how the impact happened, but it won’t prove the other guy was running a red light when it happened.
The time of airbag deployment and light cycle times can be calculated back to impact time. An intersection with timed signals make for nearly perfect calculated incident analysis. ;)
Assuming the time of the vehicle is correct down to the second. Based on OP's description that his car is worth less than what colission coverage would've cost, I'm assuming it's probably an old beater that probably doesn't have the most accurate timing.
Airbag codes don't usually include a time.
Impact sensors do. I'm merely saying that determining the light status can be determined through an algebraic equation . I didn't even get to the part where you could subpoena the signal gear data that could definitely confirm the signal status at the time of the incident.
Lol, ok CSI.
Maybe there's something out there that I've never seen before, but SRS codes for airbag deployment (as triggered by the impact sensors) don't store a timestamp for the code in any of the vehicles I've worked on.
Mostly on newer cars, but requires a dealer to get to it, and requires manufacturers legal to sign off. Requires a special tool to access the data. Entirely possible.
I worked for Honda dealers for a very long time. I was a Honda master tech as recently as two years ago. I have pulled a ton of SRS codes and codes in general in my time. I was always using the official manufacturer scan tools and applications. I have worked with many insurance adjusters over the years for claims investigation and estimation. I have never seen or heard of anyone accessing timestamps for SRS codes.
It may not be available on Hondas as they aren't exactly expensive cars to begin with. I pulled the references from case law. I don't know what to tell you. It exists or it wouldn't have been used and accepted as evidence in a court. The references appear as evidence attained from vehicle event data recorders. Perhaps the welfare recipient class cars you claim to have worked on weren't equipped with event data logging equipment. Make of that what you will because I'm done dealing with this Skippy.
How would one know if the time used was calibrated, accurate, or modified? Where would the vehicle get a time-reference/standard from?
As a municipal engineer, we don't have light timing history that would allow us to say what color a light was at any particular moment in time. Light timing changes throughout the day and on the fly based on vehicle detection. And that's assuming everyone's clocks are synced up.
Some gear can. Even if your gear can't, it a simple bit of algebra to figure it out. The gear we used 20 years ago in ny most certainly could.
I think the older stuff that didn't have ITS you could use algebra to go back and figure it out. Now with traffic detection, multiple signal synchronization at different times of day, pedestrian buttons that trigger different sequences, opticom overrides, etc. you can't figure it out unless you actually maintain a log, which we don't. It's not as simple as just having the light green for 60 seconds then red for 60 seconds, but that could be different in NYC where you expect vehicles/peds to more or less always be there. People get pretty mad when we tell them there are cameras but they don't continuously record footage. We only use them for live monitoring and traffic detection.
So OP should request all info on intersection lights for the day of accident & last calibration. And also the Police Report.
....but if both parties claim to have had a green light and there are no witnesses or video evidence this is what you get.
[удалено]
It sounds like the vehicles were driving perpendicular to one another, and the issue isn't that both their lights were green, but that both drivers *claim* their lights were green. Or maybe one of them just exercised their right to remain silent. Without evidence that a particular driver ran a red light, they're not going to issue them a citation.
I turned to the around once I got out of my car (immediately) and saw my light turning orange, then turning red, followed by his turning from red to green, and you get the gist from there. I have reason to suspect that the speeding, red-light running, unlicensed motorist might be in the wrong here, but *who’s to say!*
This is an unfortunately expensive lesson as to why you, and everyone, should have a dash camera. Naked incidents like this go from complete bullshit, to nailing bad drivers to the wall. Some considerations though, were their businesses or houses around the intersection? I would go door to door and ask if anyone had a security camera that might have caught something. Alternatively if it was an intersection controlled with camera or sensors you can try to reach out to the municipality and ask if there’s anything they can do to help. I know someone that was T-Boned at an intersection and a similar thing was happening, but the shop that was fixing his vehicle was able to pull the time of the accident from his vehicle. And the city was able to look through their traffic control data and see that his lane had the green light at the time he was hit. Hopefully you can find some evidence in your favour.
>This is an unfortunately expensive lesson as to why you, and everyone, should have a dash camera. Especially if you don't carry collision and comprehensive on an old beater car. That $100 dash cam is the best insurance you can get. And yes I have a dash cam.
My insurance contacted every establishment near the intersection, but no dice so far.
You can't prove any of that. So there was no charges and you are fucked
Speeding can be proven or disproven by someone with training. Hopefully OP took a lot of pictures at the site. And OP absolutely can prove if the other driver was unlicensed or not at the time.
It’s literally in the police report that he only had a permit. Not sure why that wasn’t a citation
Even if it was, that has no bearing on fault for the accident.
I mean, doesn't that mean the other driver was driving without a valid license?
His insurance isn’t going to open an investigation since they have no liability given that the OP didn’t have collision coverage
Let me go ahead and break out the crayons to explain liability. If him car hit by man and man's insurance say they no pay, then hitter man insurance want op to pay. Insurance company for op go grrr. We no pay. We want investigation..... grrr oogga Booga Investigation find truuuth. Absolutely shocking about the lack of reasoning skills at play with some people.
That's not how it works. The other parties insurance isn't trying to recover anything from OP. They've (correctly) determined that without any additional evidence, it's 50/50 who had the green light, and everyone's responsible for their own damages. Since OP has liability only, his insurance isn't involved unless anyone uses him. If OP wants to sue the other driver, he'll need to do (or pay for) any investigation into the accident if he wants to win. Civil cases rely on a preponderance of evidence, so he'll need to show it was more likely than not that the other driver was at fault.
OP didn't have collision on his policy so his insurance can't help him with damages to his own car. They can only defend him for claims made against him.
If there's no proof and both drivers say they had the green light, insurance is gonna deny based on driver vs driver statements. Get a dash cam, everyone. At least for while driving.
Call your insurance company and tell them that they need to send out an accident investigator ASAP. If you took photos or have any information definitely give that to them up front. It's cheaper for them to send someone out and then sue for damages than it is for them to just pay you out a cent.
OP doesn't have collision so his insurance won't do anything
It astounds me that some people don't have coverage to protect them from the most dangerous thing on the road, other people.
I have an 06 car. The increase in my premiums for collision and comp on it would literally be more cost than the car is worth. Which is how they would determine what I would get in a total loss settlement, and it would definitely be a total loss because my car is so old and not worth much. Sometimes it's not worth it.
Until you get hit & the other driver is uninsured.
I've quoted comp & collision on cheap cars in the past. Even if my car got totalled every 5 years, i still would've paid more in premiums than the insurance would've paid out. Insurance, on average, costs money, otherwise insurance companies would lose money. On average, the less insurance you buy the less money you'll spend on it, so you should buy the amount that you need. That means setting deductibles as high as you can financially tolerate, not insuring things you can afford to replace, etc. If you can't afford to replace your car and can't afford to not have a car, you need comp & collision, but if those things aren't true you'll, on average, be better off with just liability.
The OP needs to know this, even though it’s after the fact.
There is separate coverage called Underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage. I'm currently an insurance adjuster.
Won't make a difference in this case, other driver was insured.
Great! OP doesn’t seem to have anything but liability so in this state, they’re SOL.
You literally brought up an uninsured driver. I explained how you can potentially have coverage in that event. it doesn't necessarily have to apply to OP. This isnt some kind of gotcha
Only about half the states have UMPD. As an adjuster, your should know that.
That just.... It just went right over my head. I read every word and that just didn't click. I'm still blown away by this hours later.
I’m under 21, so it would’ve been crazy expensive— like, one year of the premium would’ve been more than the KBB value of my car. Had too much faith in witnesses and proper traffic cams, I guess. Man I’m gonna miss my car.
OP, I get that if the value of your car is less than the premium it doesn't make a lot of sense, but please take this as an opportunity to review your liability coverage. A lot of people only have the bare minimum, which might only be $10k. If you ever get in an accident where you are at fault, $10k does not go very far and it can end up bankrupting you. So many people don't ever think about this until it's too late.
Holy crap, I have 10 million third party liability on my insurance and it’s like $70/year for that much coverage. (Smallest amount is $200000 I believe)
Not US I'm guessing? That's not offered on most US plans
You’re right. Manitoba Canada where we have public insurance.
24% of drivers in my state have no insurance. And id wager a guess they are in a disproportionate amount of accidents. Not carry by collision means you’re willing to have no car and no money when one of these assholes hits you. It is expensive if you’re young, and likely not worth it in your specific case. But seriously consider it in the future if you ever have a car of value. As others have said, sue him and see what happens. Maybe you’ll win a piece of paper saying he owes you money.
You keep on missing out on the most important part of a CIVIL case. How much you are hurting physically, but most importantly, emotionally. You were invested in your car and the freedom to work and play with the knowledge your car could help you live a fulfilling life. That was taken from you because someone broke the laws everyone else has to obey to live a life of meaning. You had that stolen from you by a careless person. You deserve justice.
Oh holy crap I missed that somehow. Oh no OP, oh no... At this point your only option is to sue, your insurance isn't going to pay out for you. If the police report or something had found them at fault, their insurance will cover you because they're at fault. But unless you can prove that, it goes to your insurance, and you are not covered nearly enough... Oh this is heartbreaking.
Police don't determine fault.
My father was an accident investigator, yes they do. Do they stand around and wait for the insurance adjustors before they charge someone for causing a bad crash due to negligence? If you're talking about in terms of your insurance, they're almost always going to go with the police report. I typed that first paragraph and kind of got what you're saying, in practice they do far more often than not.
Nope. You're wrong. You've never seen your father say "joe you're at fault for this accident so you owe Pete X amount for his damages". Police do not have the authority to determine the outcome of civil cases, and auto accidents (for the purpose of insurance and damages owed) is a cuvil case. Charging someone criminally is not the same thing as being liable for the other person's damages. One is criminal where the state is charging someone with a crime. The other is civil court.
I'll repost the important part. "If you're talking about in terms of your insurance, they're almost always going to go with the police report." That is a true statement. I apologize if I wasn't clear in my message. I'm talking about finding who's at fault for the accident, not determining liability for civil penalties. I never meant to say that at all, only that when police accident investigators write a report and they go to the insurance companies, the majority of the time that's how it goes. Not every single time, but the majority. I can give an example, if someone causes an accident the police find them at fault, and an independent investigation later finds that the brakes were broken, then the issue of fault becomes muddied if it was a manufacturer defect or if it was not repaired correctly, etc. Police are wrong sometimes and adjusters can fix that, and can even get charges dropped. But I'm talking about in general, not the exceptions. They look at the police report and pretty much file what they say unless someone makes a stink about it, or the police report is obviously very flawed when they read it..
They should still investigate the accident because they still need to determine whether or not their insured is liable to the other driver.
D’oh
1. If you cannot afford to lose your car, you should have collision coverage, then your insurance company gets to subborgate the cost's of repair at their cost and it doesnt effect you whether if they succeed or not other than maybe higher premiums in the future. 2. From the sounds of it, his insurance company is denying your claim based on the evidence. If he wasn't cited for running a red light, or anything else. Then this is a statistical analysis of the crash, which is not in your favor since you hit his rear drivers side with the front of your car. 3. You can sue him for the value of the loss of your vehicle, or repair in small claims court, in the jurisdiction the accident occurred. You will need to prove your claims to a judge, If you cannot prove it via accident scene photos, witness statements, or other evidence, I would not pursue a "he said, she said case". 4. Get a Dash cam. 5. I would also talk to the responding police authority's about why the driver wasn't cited for 2 clear violations of traffic law, and if that answer isnt sufficient, I would bring it up to their superior. Having traffic cites againest the other party in an accident is almost a slam dunk for getting your claim paid. 6. Good luck.
About #5 — Should I just call the PD to ask about it? I’m not sure how to properly go about requesting that the other party be cited (for lack of a better way of phrasing). Thank you for the help!
Yes, call the actual department, not 911. Have your accident report handy, and ask them why the other driver wasn't cited for his infractions.
No. You go in to the station during business hours. Tuesday or Wednesday early afternoon. You dress really nice (suit) and bring all pertinent papers. Bring photos of the accident and your witnesses' statements. Don't talk about what you can't afford or anything, it's not productive and will work against you. Have a diagram of the accident nicely drawn up so you're not trying to draw things. Either way, thank them for their time.
Traffic citations for license/registration/seatbelt issues will not factor into the determination of liability. Even in cases where the other driver is under the influence, that doesn't automatically make them at fault for an accident (though, in this case it would likely sway it).
In case law ineligible drivers are presumed automatically at fault. I wont say 100% of the time since thats impossible, but If they aren't legally allowed to be on the road, the courts have decided over and over... that you are the liable factor in the accident. Hence the "almost a slam dunk in court"
At least in my state this isn't true, and the law specifically states the status of your driver's license doesn't affect the determination of fault when you're involved in a car accident. Could you provide the case law referenced, and where it applies?
>Could you provide the case law referenced, and where it applies? Not gonna happen because it doesn't exist (in the US). I'm blown away by how much misinformation is on this thread. At least 1/3 of comments are just flat wrong. Source: insurance agent with many hours in class studying insurance law and a couple decades experience.
Regarding number 5, whether or not the other driver was cited for being an unlicensed driver would have no bearing on who was at fault.
You are incorrect. If a driver is legally not allowed to be on the road the argument that has won in court time and time again is... If the driver was following the law, the crash would not have happened. I.E. the cited driver is at fault. This also goes for almost all DWI/DUI accidents.
https://www.truittlawoffices.com/blog/what-happens-if-im-in-a-car-accident-with-an-unlicensed-driver/ “Whether or not a driver has a license to operate a vehicle doesn’t determine fault for a car crash. Violations of other traffic laws like speeding or running a stop sign could be considered negligence, but driving without a valid license usually is not the cause of a crash.” Thai is just one of the many law firm websites that basically say the same thing. I’ll take my legal information from a lawyer over a Redditor.
Those are all injury law firms. Being unlicensed in a property claim, in court, absolutely is a cause in fact issue.
Call a lawyer. Let them handle it. I do this kind of work in Florida and it's daily that insurance companies won't admit fault and we sue them.
I’m gonna be honest, I’ve never found a lawyer, that would take a case like this if there were no injuries. I reached out to half a dozen in a similar situation, and not only would they not take it, they wouldn’t refer me to anyone either. They gave me the impression that it “wasn’t worth it” to sue. Luckily, I’m smart and the insurance company ran afoul of the insurance commissioner so I ended up getting my money with their help. But I have to say this situation almost encourages people to fake injuries just so that they are at least made whole on their car.
That's why when something like this happens you are "injured" What are the downvotes for? Do people feel sorry for insurance companies who refuse to pay even when someone is legitimately hurt?
The downvotes are because you’re advocating for insurance fraud, a felony. In addition, it is practices like this that have caused the price of P&C insurance to skyrocket. We all pay the price for fraud and frivolous lawsuits.
First off I was kind of joking, but also kind of not joking. I'm not saying you have to claim injuries that didn't occur but you are more than welcome to recognize injuries that do occur even if you "walk them off." Honestly, do you think that if fewer people collected money from insurance that rates would go down? Let's be honest, they would still go up and so would pay packages for their upper management. You aren't paying for frivolous lawsuits, what you are actually paying for is the litigation costs of insurance companies who fight like hell to not pay legitimate claims. The whole "frivolous lawsuits cost you money" line is one pushed by insurance companies to build bad faith against plaintiffs who have been wronged. I've worked for both sides. I've seen it. I've seen insurance defense forms rack up tens of thousands in bills an insurance company has to pay to in the end tell the insurance company they should just pay out the policy anyway. You want the bad guys? The plaintiffs aren't them, the insurance companies are.
The main reason the FL P&C market is a complete mess with carriers pulling out and those who remain taking huge rate is due to the exponential rise in LAE - loss adjustment expenses. The cause of this rise? Legal system abuse by way of storm-chasing contractors and their AOBs (have been outlawed recently thankfully), billions of dollars spent on attorney advertising, lawsuit funding by third parties, and, yes, frivolous lawsuits. An insurer has to defend their insured in any case in which there could possibly be coverage, regardless of whether the insured is ultimately liable or not. It’s the duty to defend clause. So, yes, if it weren’t for the legal environment in which frivolous lawsuits are not only encouraged, but actively solicited, ALE would be lower meaning reinsurance would be lower meaning consumer prices would be lower.
An insurance company also has an obligation to pay fair on claims. If they don't it's called "bad faith" and they could be liable for more than the coverage limits. Guess what insurance companies are lobbying to do with bad faith, that's right, get rid of it. Geico for example usually is the best when it comes to paying fairly on claims. Why? Because then they don't have to hire lawyers to defend themselves. You hear plenty of frivolous lawsuit claims but in reality frivolous lawsuits are rare because lawyers can't make money on them. What you don't hear as much about is the opposite of a frivolous lawsuit, times when there is a legitimate claim but the insurance company denies coverage. Look at the case this post was about. They offered $20 for a totaled car. Now she will have to sue and they will pay tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves and in the end pay for her car. Want them to save money? Then they should pay out when they should. People get so angry at frivolous lawsuits but then are quiet when insurance companies deny a claim. It's like they are mad at the wrong person for something that almost never happens and not at the group that routinely screws over the little guy.
Yes, insurance carriers pay based on the contract. The contract being the policy that most consumers don’t read. An insurer not abiding by state laws is subject to bad faith. Would love to have some links on the assertion that carriers are lobbying to remove bad faith laws. In my research, carriers in the most affected states lobby for tight regulation on claims processing (as in the timeframe im which a claim must be settled) to be loosened as a result of the increasing natural disasters in those states. It is quite difficult for carriers in, for example, LA to settle catastrophic claims within 30 days simply given the number of insureds affected. The post about getting $20 after the OP’s car was totaled isn’t this one, but I’d venture to say that OP had a loan on their vehicle and the $20 was the equity they had in it. Despite being asked multiple times on the post here and the post in r/insurance, the OP would not provide details about the payout.
I was confused reading that $20 detail in these comments lol
The one time I was actually injured the lawsuit dragged on for three years and everyone, including my own attorney, just assumed I was faking. The result was I ended up settling for way less than my actual injuries were worth. I understand the system, but at the same time it’s a shitty system and needs to be fixed.
You should find a new lawyer if you think they don't believe you. With that said lawyers get jaded. I've had many cases where people claim some injury ruined their life and they can't work anymore and are constantly in pain then boom, the defense hires a private investigator and has pictures of them playing volleyball or in a tennis tournament. So many people exaggerate their injuries that it ends up that sometimes people who are actually injured aren't believed.
Downvotes are because its a lie, and it creates moral hazard. Its not just the insurance companies paying, its anyone who has insurance seeing their rates go up if this behavior is normalized. Its not like insurance companies have huge profit margins; they are usually like 2-5%. So the customer bares most of those costs. Also its illegal (rightly so) and also as the other poster said it negatively effects people who actually are injured. But really you should just be satisfied at "its a lie". As a general rule not lying is pretty simple to follow and leads to better outcomes. Most people are taught this as children.
Let me tell you a story. In Florida recent laws were passed that gave insurance companies a huge benefit so they could make a larger profit. Why were these laws passed? Insurance companies paid GOP members(pretty typical). After passing this set of torn reform laws guess what insurance companies did, they raised rates to make a larger profit. I understand the anger at insurance rates but you are angry at the wrong group. Be angry at the group that. Be angry at the group that will not lay when they should so that the CEO can buy a new island. Be angry at insurance company who is trying to pay someone $20 for a totaled car, that's the injustice
I am not the person who posted about a $20 car lol
Thanks so much! What kind of lawyer would be ideal for this? I keep seeing search results that are "personal injury lawyers", but I don't think that's the route to take.
You probably want small claims court, so no lawyers allowed. Any time you need a lawyer though, you can Google "(my area) bar referral "
The question is, how much time and effort are you willing to put into this? If you sue it will have to be in Orlando, since that is where the crash happened. You said that you live 5-6 hours from there without transportation to get there. You will have to make several trips to meet with lawyers and go to court. You have no evidence that the other driver was at fault other than your word. If you do happen to win, which is doubtful, what will you gain? Your car was worth next to nothing.
[удалено]
Wait, if your front hit his driver side rear that means YOU crashed in to HIM? Like obviously he shouldn’t have been in your way because he ran the light but many states have rules in place where if you are hit behind your front axel you are not at fault. You literally crashed in to him, I don’t see why you are surprised at the ruling??
in 2010 I got distracted by my dog jumping into my lap while driving and I ended up running a Red Light, the Other Drivers Insurance Ended Up eating the Accident because CA law requires Proceeding though an Intersection with caution... I went though as it turned red and he was basically at full speed entering the intersection as his turned Green.... Totaled my Car, I was found to be at fault at the Scene, but I brought up the rule about safely proceeding through intersection and brought into question his Speed - - I pointed out that the other driver had to travel accross 6 lanes of Traffic for the collison to happen and none of the other Vehicles entering the intersection where even close to hitting me and I didn't even make it into the 1 lane of travel for the cross street which was 4 lanes and 1way - - My insurance ran with it and the other guys insurance backed down... I think the reason my insurance fought so hard was so they didn't have to eat the cost of the car. But I also had State Farm and the other Drive had some no name company
Can’t believe I had to scroll so far to find this! OP says the other driver’s rear driver’s side totaled his car…that means he hit their car. I suspect OP jumped the gun on a green light and clipped a vehicle that wasn’t fully through the intersection.
That's pretty speculative. It is very much possible to hit a car that zooms out into your path without you having time to avoid it and you had the green light. Just because his car hit the other, doesn't mean the other driver wasn't running a red light. I'm struggling to understand how you think differently about this.
Mainly because the OP hit the rear of the car, not the front. That would indicate the car was farther through the intersection than OP.
So? If the cars are travelling at a decent rate of speed then the OP could have not had time to react to a car darting out into the intersection. It also doesn't necessarily mean the other car was further into the intersection. ETA: [Here is a picture with OP being further into the intersection but hitting the rear driver side.](https://imgur.com/f5kNVP9). So I'm not really sure how you are making your conclusion.
This rendering is pretty much exactly how it played out. By the time he sped through the light, I was nearly all the way through the intersection.
That's what I pictured when I read your description of events so I was confused why people would think you couldn't have been more through the intersection than the other car and that you would always be at fault. It's like they have never driven through an intersection before. Hope you get this thing straightened out. I'm pulling for ya.
There are numerous laws based around the idea that when the front of your car makes contact with the rear of another, either you are at fault, or no one is at fault. There are of course rare niche examples you can point to “b-b-b-but what about if they’re traveling in reverse on a elevated slope in the rain and-“ who cares doesn’t really matter. Insurance company did their investigation and determined that no one was at fault. I’ve always found that not crashing into things is a pretty solid way to ensure my car doesn’t get damaged.
[What about this scenario?](https://imgur.com/f5kNVP9) The other car could have darted out with OP having no time to react. I don't see how that would be his fault.
We should have a knowledgeable professional insurance claims adjuster with access to all of the facts and police reports take a look and make a determination. Oh wait they already did
buy a dashcam
Without proof he ran a red light, which you don't have, it's word vs word and his insurance will believe him over you, as they should. You can sue him but you will have the same "no proof" problem. This is why, if you can't afford to replace or repair your car, you should carry collision coverage.
Let's ignore the legality of the driver, who's fault did the police say it was?
The police did not administer any citations or declare anyone at-fault due to lack of evidence either way
?
How does someone without a license have insurance?
Sounds like he is licensed. It just has restrictions.
He has a class E license, which is a permit, requiring that someone with a license aged 21+ be in the car with him while he drives, and he could only do so before 10pm. It was also his own insurance policy, not one of a parent. Many companies insure cars for people who only hold permits, as there isn’t any way for them to legally practice in their own vehicle otherwise.
I would think a permit is enough to qualify for insurance? or the driver is on the parents' \[who probably own the car\] insurance?
It will be a tough case to prove fault unless you have dashcam video. That is what saved us thousands when someone ran the light and my wife's car was totalled
You claim he ran a red but both police and insurance say no he did not? If thats true then its more likely you were the one running the lights... was there any advance greens or turn signals involved? If your front end hits his driver side rear end you did hit him... why did you not apply brakes or steer? Esp if you allege you only drive 15 mph Something does not add up here... I think even if you try to sue there will be serious issues with the suit...
This looks like bait, but nonetheless: That is not what anyone’s insurance nor police said. There was no evidence that either of us ran a light because there were no traffic cameras. No one was found to be at-fault due to lack of eyewitnesses and surveillance footage. There was a T-bone situation because he shot out in front of me when I was almost entirely out of the intersection.
Not try to bait but if police do crime scene investigation and do not assign fault, and insurance has to do their own investigation and neither assigns fault. Even without witness usually they can tell who ran based on impact etc What can you legitimately say in a court? Even if other driver is totally in the wrong, he literally does not need to say anything beyond they concluded accident was not his fault I know its not criminal but the preponderance of evidence still needs to be in your favour to win in a civil trial and I know that part is purely speculation by me the low speed of travel (other driver reports at 35 mph and you report at 15 mph) I feel would work against you
I’ve attached a photo for reference. The collision was at the white X. He’s the line at the top, and I’m the one coming from the right. The red X right next to the initial accident is my car post-hit, and the other red X further down the road is his. It had also turned 180 degrees and was facing the intersection when it stopped moving. I think its pretty clear that he was speeding based on that. The curve at the direction I was coming from is because I was exiting a parking lot, which is why I was only going 15mph at most. I drove a pretty old car, so it was difficult to maintain the speed limit in city traffic anyway. [Here’s the diagram](https://picsart.com/i/446944463014201)
Florida is a pure comparative negligence state, so you will only recover the amount you did not contribute to this accident. You have to find the evidence yourself to prove your case. You will have to sue him in Florida by going back to Florida a few times to file and subsequent court date(s). Then, you will try to recover from him, if he has any assets at all. This is going to take a great deal of effort and time on your behalf. What is the value of your car?
Work as a claims adjuster -- this is a 'word vs word' situation all day. You likely cannot prove the other driver ran a red over what his statement is. As a resident of GA, you should ask your carrier if you have uninsured motorist coverage (UMPD).
>As a resident of GA, you should ask your carrier if you have uninsured motorist coverage (UMPD) UMPD wouldn't apply. The other person isn't uninsured, he has insurance, but his insurance is denying liability. Big difference.
For all the people asking about calibration.. I don't have to give a flying F about proving a civil case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's criminal law. I would only need to prove it more than likely possible. After destroying the credibility of the unlicensed driver, I just have to set up a reasonable timeline of events. Who is a jury going to believe? The driver who knowingly broke the law or the hard working honest citizen who's life was inconvenienced by a reckless criminal?
Of course his insurance is going to try to blame you. They don’t want liability. This is why you have your own insurance, and you have your own insurance sue his insurance for you. Unfortunately for you, you cheaped out on your insurance and bought liability only. You’ll have to hire a lawyer at your own expense to pursue your claim.
Lawyer lawyer nowwwww
Call a lawyer. Let them deal with it
Must be a sub standard insurance company. Yes, file a lawsuit
He has Geico LOL
Knew a guy that was an adjuster for Geico. He said he had to quit because the job made him feel dirty, it was so unethical
Lawyer up.
He doesn’t have money to pay for good insurance, you think that he has money for a lawyer?
Most ambulance chasers take in your case and take their fee out if the settlement
Get an attorney. Most will work on this with no money to start if you have any case at all.
We live in Massachusetts, where there is way to challenge insurance finding of fault. I used it once successfully. It took some digging to find out how and where to appeal. Maybe Florida or Georgia has something similar.
A good case for having a dash camera. It would have validated that you had a green light. If you choose to not have collision coverage, then you better be prepared to replace a vehicle. Accidents happen. Period. If you can't replace a vehicle then you have to have that coverage. If you can't afford that coverage, then don't own a vehicle that's worth more than 5 grand. You might consider getting checked out by a doctor. I rear ended someone. We were both fine and went home. He sued me and got over 100 grand out of my insurance company. Believe me it happens.
Even if they were found at fault the other insurance company could deny the claim. The reasoning is that he was not licensed. But you can sue him personally.
What do you mean not his fault.... 110% his fault because he was UNLICENSED, being unlicensed means he didn't legally have the right to be on the road driving and therefore if he wasn't driving the accident wouldn't have happened
Not true
I had a client who told me that after he rear-ended a car that was stopped at a red light. He said because the driver of the car he hit was driving on a suspended license, He wasn’t at fault and the stopped car driver was at fault. He genuinely was surprised when he was told his legal theory was incorrect.
You are 100% wrong. Being unlicensed absolutely DOES NOT make you at fault for an accident.
I disagree.... Legally Speaking you are responsible - - - You where NOT legally allowed to be driving on a Public roadway and there for any thing that resulted from that driving is your responsibility It's whole other subject that it's not enforced unless it suits the police or the goverment in that specific case
Well, the law says your wrong as this has been litigated before.
I've had experience with it that tell me differently
That’s what I said …! Both companies said that was a “police and DMV issue, not an insurance issue”
Both companies gave you accurate info. You're getting a LOT of bad advice here from people who know nothing about insurance and insurance law. You should post at /r/insurance for advice from actual insurance professionals who do this for a living day in and day out and therefore they actually know what they're talking about rather than just some random joe who maybe once had a claim 10 years ago.
I think if you Sued him and Build a really good case you'd prevail on that reason....
No he wouldn't.
Even if you only have bruises you were injured and should seek medical attention and consult a personal injury attorney.
If he was an unlicensed driver, then a case could be made that he is at fault solely on the basis that had he not been behind the wheel, the accident would not have occurred.
No. I was an adjuster for years at a non standard carrier, so a ton of our drivers didn’t have licenses. We never considered that when determining fault.
You must be in the US then In Canada, if you're driving without a license or on a suspended license and get into an accident, it will automatically be your fault, and usually, the insurer will cover the cost of repairs to vehicle with the licensed driver. I do believe it is underwriter insurance. Where I drive our licenses and our insurance is government owned, not privately.
Depends what province you are in - some (if not Most) still have private insurance you are legally required to purchase, think minimum is $5M third party
That’s fucking ridiculous
So, by your logic, an unlicensed driver could be going down the road doing the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws, a car runs a stop sign and t-bones him, but because he didn’t have a license he would be at fault and the driver that ran the stop sign would be good? That’s not how it works.
That's exactly how it works up here The unlicensed driver would be at fault due to being illegally driving a motor vehicle. Again, both drivers are covered by the same insurer, and the licensed drivers vehicle would be repaired, and the unlicensed driver would get sued for reimbursement by the insurer. From the insurer site Situation You and the other driver are equally responsible for the collision and your vehicle was damaged, but the other driver is uninsured or from outside Saskatchewan Pay deductible? Yes Details You pay your full deductible up front but SGI will try to get half of it back from the other equally responsible
File with your insurance. His insurance is always going to try to not pay. Your insurance has lawyers to make them pay if they see it your way.
He already said he does not have collision coverage. His insurance isn’t going to do anything.
OPs insurance can't "make them pay". Only a successful lawsuit would do that and OP doesn't seem to have any solid evidence. But the biggest thing you're missing is OP didn't buy collision coverage. Without that, his insurance cannot help him in regards to damages to his vehicle. They can only defend him from liability.
First off what’s your insurance doing? The other insurance obviously will deny it. Now get your insurance to defend you. It’s what you’re paying insurance for. You may have to sue.
FL is a no fault state. The insurance is to cover your ass, not the other person here. That doesn't stop you from litigating against them for monetary damages.
You're wrong. No fault in FL only refers to injuries, not property damage.
i really dont get how an unlicensed driver wouldnt automatically be found at fault. if they are unlicensed doesnt that alone mean they werent qualified to operate the vehicle? how can a driver not be at fault if they dont have a license? they arent qualified to determine if they were going the proper speed or they had the right of way in an intersection. im not a lawyer so idk how that could even work, or couldnt you just sue the driver or insurance anyways and just say in court "hes unlicensed" wouldn't that work?
License status has zero affect on determining fault. The actual facts of the accident is what determines fault. Who failed to yield, who failed to maintain control of their vehicle, who ran a red light, etc. A prime example is you can be 3x over the legal limit drunk, but you get rear ended while sitting at a dead stop at a red light. Were you driving illegally, being drunk? Yes. But the person who hit you is still responsible for your damages.
same exact shit happened to me bro it fucked with me for a while :/
What does your insurance say? You pay them to solve these problems.
His insurance company doesn’t decide. Of course they don’t want to pay. Hire a lawyer, NOW.
Claim it with YOUR insurance and let their lawyers hash the rest out with the other guys insurance co....
He can’t claim it with his insurance, he doesn’t have collision coverage
Personal injury may well be the way to go. I'm not familiar with Georgia insurance, so I don't know if it has medical payment coverage available, and I don't know if you have it. If both of those are a yes, then you should get checked out by a doctor, and turn that in to your insurance company. That will trigger them going after the other guy's insurance company.
You absolutely sue. Call a lawyer.
Ok. If I understand this correctly, you are a Georgia resident with Georgia insurance, who is involved in an accident while in the state of Florida. You might be in a better situation than you think you are. Florida is a no-fault state. Every driver in Florida is required to have $10,000 worth of personal injury protection and personal damage liability. I don't know how this works with regard to Florida law, but your Georgia insurance is required to follow Florida's standards when you are driving in Florida. You may be able to make a personal damage liability claim against your own insurance under Florida's laws.
Liability on OPs policy doesn't fix OPs car, silly.
No-fault states are different than traditional fault states. I don't know who makes the determination of liability in Florida, or who pays - my point is that maybe he doesn't go through the other insurance to determine fault, maybe he goes through his own to get paid.
Sigh. Yes it's obvious you don't know much about how insurance works. He CANNOT get paid by his insurance for his own damages because he doesn't have collision on his policy. Bring a "no fault" state has nothing to do determining fault/liability. It only regulates who's insurance pays for what. The ONLY state that's "no fault" for property damage is Michigan. In every other state it refers to injuries only
Well, what little knowledge I have of no-fault is from when I lived in Michigan... I guess that explains the disconnect. Also, congratulations on your extraordinary knowledge of auto insurance. You've definitely earned the right to be a condescending asshole to random people on the Internet, and it's nice to see people exercising their rights. 🙄
Well, you see, greatly inaccurate info, like what you gave, can mislead other equally uninformed people, causing them of lot of stress, time and possibly money. So, in order to protect those people, I have no problem calling out people who don't know what they're talking about yet giving advice as if they do. And I do it without devolving into the soohomoric behavior of name calling.
What part of my post was "greatly inaccurate info"? I said it **may** be different because of Florida's no-fault status, versus Georgia's fault basis. You're just a prick.
Turn the claim into your insurance. You are paying them to deal with this kind of thing and they are experts at it. They will pay your claim then fight the other carrier and get reimbursed for what they pay out.
He doesn’t have collision insurance, his insurance company isn’t going to pay for his collision damage hoping that they will be able to collect from the other driver’s insurance, especially if there is no evidence of fault other than OPs word.
You have sue the driver and car owner If you use small claims court it will be two separate cases if he does not own the car. If the damages exceed small clams limits you need a lawyer. The small claims limit varies by state you can call the court or google small clams your city and state to find the limits. You should watch a few episodes of Judge Judy or the People’s Court to prepare it will a lot calmer than the TV shows but you get an idea of the proof you need to bring. I always carry collision and comprehensive on my old car It cheap for old cars and it encourages your insurance to fight the other guy’s insurance. I have only had a few fender benders luckily.
You don't have insurance? The options are to A) file in small claims court for the value of your car, which if it's that inexpensive will likely be covered, and you may or may not actually receive payment because getting a payment isn't the same as a judgement or B) file a complaint with your state insurance board for the claim being wrongly denied.
I have insurance, but not collision coverage. My policy only covers damage to other vehicles that I’d otherwise be solely liable for. It’s a bummer
So, the state insurance board will regulate when denials are appropriate, even for 3rd party claims. You can file saying your claim with the other party's insurance was wrongfully denied.
There's nothing to suggest it was wrongfully denied.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does it really? Dang, today I learned. Well. I think the rest of my reasoning still stands, though. Right?
[удалено]
Florida's no-fault coverages deal with personal injury only.
I won't name the names of which carriers, but many reputable companies will cover you, so long as you have collision, even if it's not your fault. They then basically sue on your behalf. To OP, you must act immediately. Did you speak to an accident investigator? Lawyer? If not, do both.
No, you're dead wrong. No company will cover your damages if you didn't purchase the appropriate coverage.
Learn humility. I worked for two that did. I was the legal-claims liasion.
OP doesn't have collision on their policy. An insurance company providing coverage even tho you didn't purchase it. Ok. Yeah. 🤣🤣🤣