Bad Faith Insurance Question

[Yuke]

What is the name of your state? CA

I was involved in an auto-accident and was deemed 100% at fault by the police's initial report. I rear-ended a car. I claimed that the other car cut in front of my just before the accident, then slammed his brakes causing me to rear-end him. The police report fails to mention that he cut me off.

My insurance company assessed me at 100% fault as well. The other party has stated that he never changed lanes for at least 2 miles.

Here's the rub. The other party had to change lanes at least 1/10 of a mile before the accident, because the accident occured in a transition lane between one freeway to another. So there is no way he could have gotten into that lane without changing lanes. Travelling at about 45 mph from the earliest point you can enter the transistion lane to the point of the accident, it takes 10 seconds.

So here is why I allege bad faith, the other had to be lying, the facts support that he lied, but I'm still deemed 100% at fault based on his lies and a faulty police report. Of course, I don't have medical coverage by my own insurance company so there is no reason for them to argue with the other insurance company to have my injuries covered. I made a supplemental police report where they deemed the other party at fault.

Is this a good case? I've sufferred a life-long injury to me knee.

 

[JETX]

"Is this a good case? "
*** Based solely on the information in your post.... no.
You have as good a chance of winning a 'bad faith' claim against your insurance company as Japan does of annexing California.

 

[Yuke]

.

Am I doomed because of the initial police report?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Yuke, do you have trouble with the "Social Graces"? After the help or information we've given you in the past, as in the instant thread, I don't recall one time where you have said a simple "Thank You". You just disappear until your next post.

IAAL

 

[Yuke]

.

My thank you has come by answering questions in the Intellectual property section and contributing to this community.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=368904&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

But thanks for helping me in the past. Also, I tend to thank people ahead of time.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147911

 

[stephenk]

if you think the other party is at fault, you can sue the other driver and owner of the vehicle for your injuries.

was the impact to the entire rear of the other car or more to one side or the other?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Re: .

My thank you has come by answering questions in the Intellectual property section and contributing to this community.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=368904&sortby =lastpost&sortorder=descending

But thanks for helping me in the past. Also, I tend to thank people ahead of time.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/ showthread.php?s=&threadid=147911

My response:

You're right Yuke. My apologies. Two posts out of 23 of your entries onto these forums does not show a "complete" lack of Social Graces. But, it's pretty damn close! And, you didn't "pre-thank" anyone in this thread. I'm just glad you eventually got around to it after being reminded that it's okay to do so.

IAAL

 

[Yuke]

IAAL: Thanks for pointing that out. I tend to think the people who answer in here are pretty busy, so I figure they don't care, and saying too many thanks you's might irritate them because that "thank you" post made them spend time to read it.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

In the voice of Kasey Kasem doing a Top 40 Countdown - -

"And the excuses just keep ON coming!"

Yuke, I liked your idea of "pre-thanking" in an initial post - - you know, "Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of my stupid problems", or something along those lines.

That way, we don't have to click needlessly, as you suggested it might be.

IAAL

 

[Yuke]

if you think the other party is at fault, you can sue the other driver and owner of the vehicle for your injuries.

was the impact to the entire rear of the other car or more to one side or the other?

It was all to the back of their vehicle. The reason why I hit them apart from the them cutting me off and not giving me enough braking distance, my anti-lock brakes engaged and their's did not.

Suing them directly may be the solution. I guess I should find out what they claimed as their injuries to assess what they may counter-claim. I'm pretty sure they only had those typical neckache/soft tissue injuries, while I have damage to the cartilage in my knees that only "may" be cured by surgery.

 

[hexeliebe]

Why Thank you for that post IAAL, it brought back some very nice nights in Atwater parked along the irrigation canal in the old '63 corvair with Susan

 

[GoforLaw]

bad faith

I think that Stephen posted a good question about where the damage to the cars is - this is an important fact. As far as your insurance company, under Prop. 103, an insurance company can only increase your rates if you are 50% or more at fault. So, if you can go down to 49% there is no premium increase allowed. Every insurance company must have a unit that investigates the issue of fault for premium purposes (as opposed to claims). You should apply to them to change the fault rating in your favor, based on the facts you described and the evidence you can submit to prove your case. A bad faith suit may be possible if they fail to properly investigate your claim.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

If you haven't already done so, you might want to take a gander at the very recent case of Morris v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 966, 973, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 718, 723.

First party Bad Faith claims just became even more difficult . . .

IAAL

 

[JETX]

Just kind of curious....
Did 'gopherlaw' overlook that the police (at the scene) detemined that this writer was at fault.......
AND that the insurance investigator (presumably after reviewing the facts) determined that this writer was at fault.....
AND based on the description of the damage provided in this post, there is nothing to indicate that the OTHER driver was at fault.......
And yet, his post offers the 'pie in the sky' hope that "Every insurance company must have a unit that investigates the issue of fault for premium purposes".

Where the hell did Gopherlaw get that??? And why does Gopherlaw even think that there is a breath of hope in this case??

I can tell you this after several years of on-scene accident reports..... I have NEVER seen a car hit directly from the rear (as in this case) with NO side or lateral damage that was determined to be AT fault.
The 'rule' is.... at the very instant that the other car obtained FULL entry into that lane, the car that hit them from behind failed to provide sufficient safe distance.

Further, the writers statement that he hit them because his "anti-lock brakes engaged and their's did not" is ridiculous. If that was true.... the writers car would have stopped BEFORE the one in front of him...... and avoided contact.

"Antilock brakes are impressive performers on the test track and in television advertising. They prevent vehicle wheels from locking, decrease the distance required to stop and improve a driver's control during emergency braking on wet and slippery roads."
and
"It's possible, on some surfaces, to stop sooner without antilock brakes than with them, although such instances are rare. This occurs when loosely packed snow or gravel creates a "dam" effect in front of a locked wheel and thus shortens the stopping distance compared with what antilocks could achieve."
Source: http://www.harristechnical.com/abs.htm

 

[stephenk]

have you already received an "at fault" letter from your carrier? If so, the only time I have ever seen my employer reverse their liability assessment was after I went to trial on a case and obtained a defense verdict for my client. The carrier had already paid the other party's property damage and had placed full fault on my client. After the defense verdict, the carrier reimbursed 2 years worth of increased premium payments and lowered their annual rate.

A rear end impact to the entire back of a car is not going to be a 49% fault assessment. Sorry, but you are on the hook.