Car accident - why the delay?

[Volo]

What is the name of your state? California

I was involved in a car accident recently. I was basically forced off the road by another driver (a student driver actually). My car was run up onto and over the median divider of the road and major damage was done to the underbelly of my car.

The driver stopped right away and I spoke with his mother (the licensed driver / teacher). They were very nice and honest about everything. She provided me with a written statement that her son had caused the accident as well as her insurance information.

They happen to have the same insurance company that I do.

I called the insurance company (and so did they). Two claims were filed, one against my policy (to handle the immediate situation, get the car towed, etc) and one against theirs as the liable party.

Well, my claim was handled promptly. But I'm going to owe a deductible and whatnot before I can claim my car from the repair shop. I was told this was the way to do things and they would seek to recoup my losses from "the other insurance carrier" aka themselves as the liable party. I was also told that if "the other insurance carrier" accepted liability, then they would take care of everything including the provision of a rental car which my policy doesn't cover.

I faxed them the statement from the at-fault driver's mother (she is the only one of legal age and the only licensed driver) and they even told me they'd talked to her and she'd given them the same story I had. And yet "the other insurance carrier" still has not accepted liability. Every time I call, I'm given what feels like an excuse. They need to take a statement from the driver himself but he's in school or they've left messages and it's not their fault he hasn't called them back or whatever. Then, after they admitted they had his statement, well, it needed to be reviewed against mine and there was a coverage issue and so on and so forth (first I've heard of a coverage issue - they wouldn't give me anymore specific info than that).

And I asked the insurance company a number of questions:

Is there a timeframe on when I can expect a liability decision? Their answer: No, there is no timeframe. (They can take as long as they want? Really?)

What's my recourse if you don't accept liability? Answer from "my" claims adjuster. Well, if we (meaning insurance company) think we have a solid enough case, we might decide to litigate the issue against the "other insurance carrier." (Really? Sue themselves?)

How hard are you going to pursue the recoup of my deductible? Answer: Just as hard as we would if it were really another insurance company. (???)

So, I guess my question is...asking for advice from someone other than my insurance company...

1) Do the insurance companies have timeframes to which they must comply? Or is it really that they have carte blanche in these matters?

2) What are my methods of recourse should they not step up and accept liability? Must I leave it in the hands of the insurance company to decide whether or not they want to sue themselves? Maybe I'm a bit jaded but I have a hard time believing they'll rush to do that on my behalf.

3) Anyone had any experience in dealing with the same insurance company on both ends? Do they really work hard for you regardless?

I'm just a little lost and a whole lot mistrustful. It feels like I'm getting the run-around and maybe it's just me and maybe everything is on the up and up but I wanted some solid information from a source that has no vested interest in matters.

Thanks - VoloWhat is the name of your state?

 

[moburkes]

Well, you've got a few problems. What did the other driver do to "basically" run you off the side of the road? If you two had collided, it would be an open and shut case. Just because mom verbally accepted liability, doesn't mean that she is liable. There is no specific timeframe, but 30 days is a starting point, which is why you can pay your deductible, and, move on. Potentially, this accident will be deemed a one-car accident, with you 100% at fault.

 

[Zigner]

File a small claims suit against the other driver for payment of your deductible...

 

[tammy8]

My money is on the one car accident too.

 

[Volo]

Oops. Posted twice by accident.

 

[Volo]

Well, you've got a few problems. What did the other driver do to "basically" run you off the side of the road? If you two had collided, it would be an open and shut case. Just because mom verbally accepted liability, doesn't mean that she is liable. There is no specific timeframe, but 30 days is a starting point, which is why you can pay your deductible, and, move on. Potentially, this accident will be deemed a one-car accident, with you 100% at fault.

What did he do? He pulled into my lane. Not in front of me. Not behind me but from the side. Even if I could have performed an instantaneous stop (which as every driver knows is impossible), he would have hit me. If I'd tried to speed up, he would have hit me (we were going comparable speeds and there's no way there was time to gain sufficient momentum to clear him). If I hadn't gone onto the median, he would have hit me. There were exactly two choices open to me: get hit by a much larger vehicle or...you guessed it...the median. In the split-second I had to choose, I thought the median the least likely of the two to cause bodily harm.

I guess, in the end, I just don't understand how the insurance company (whose representative was not there) could question the statements of the people who WERE there (me and the other insured).

But then again it's a company. And I will take them to small claims court if I have to (though I hope I hope I hope I won't have to). With the written statement from the mother (along with the verbal statements even the insurance carrier admits matches my own), I have to believe that they'd have a hard time trying to push the whole one car accident thing.

Anyway, thank you for the advice. I'll give them 30 days. Sounds reasonable. Much more reasonable than "there is no timeframe." If they don't have an answer for me by then, I'll have to look into more official help. (Not that I don't appreciate the unofficial help - I really do - the whole one car accident thing is new terminology for me and gives me something new to watch out for.)

Thanks again and, if anyone has more advice or legal info for me on how the insurance companies work or are supposed to work, I'd be glad for it.

 

[stephenk]

how much is the deductible?

You should pay the deductible to first get your vehicle out of the repair shop and then sue the other party in small claims court.

You need to mitigate your damages. A SC judge may not like that you are letting your car sit in the shop and you continue to rent a car when you can remove the car for a lower price (deductible versus ongoing rental charge).

 

[Volo]

how much is the deductible?

You should pay the deductible to first get your vehicle out of the repair shop and then sue the other party in small claims court.

You need to mitigate your damages. A SC judge may not like that you are letting your car sit in the shop and you continue to rent a car when you can remove the car for a lower price (deductible versus ongoing rental charge).

Yeah, I'm aware of that. I need my car anyway. But it's not an issue at present. The repairs aren't complete yet - had to wait for some parts and there was extensive damage. And, to save money, I'm borrowing a car at present but it won't be available to me for forever. The main argument will be the deductible which I plan to pay (in order to get my car) and any rental costs I may incur in future. But it sounds like I may have to go to court over this (unless the insurance company makes a decision in my favor) and it just seems so...wrong that the insurance company would make a seemingly simple matter complicated over a relatively small sum of money. They're stuck for the majority of the repairs regardless. It's the deductible. Pennies to them. A fortune to me. I really can't afford it. And I shouldn't have to afford it. But I will. I'll make it work. Put off my financial plans, tighten the proverbial belt, etc. And then, if necessary, small claims...<sigh>

But, again, thanks. All info is good info.

 

[stephenk]

who is your carrier?

 

[Volo]

I'm not sure it would be appropriate to say. It looks like I may have to pursue legal recourse which I really didn't want to have to do but...

I got "the other insurance" company's answer today. They're not accepting liability. They say that, since there was no contact between the cars, there was no accident. You can imagine my feelings regarding that statement.

 

[moburkes]

I'm not sure it would be appropriate to say. It looks like I may have to pursue legal recourse which I really didn't want to have to do but...

I got "the other insurance" company's answer today. They're not accepting liability. They say that, since there was no contact between the cars, there was no accident. You can imagine my feelings regarding that statement.

...which is what I expected. Sorry. Your only option is to pay the deductible and head to small claims court.

 

[tammy8]

I totally understand that if I had been in the same situation as you in regards to actual accident, I would have did exactly what you did also. However on the other hand, you as a driver also have to be in control of your vehicle at all times. This means defense driving. That is how the law in regards to insurance is written.

 

[Volo]

I totally understand that if I had been in the same situation as you in regards to actual accident, I would have did exactly what you did also. However on the other hand, you as a driver also have to be in control of your vehicle at all times. This means defense driving. That is how the law in regards to insurance is written.

I have to respond to this. I respect that opinion. However, I believe I was driving defensively. In a situation where you are left with two options, to allow another larger car to strike you or drive onto the median, I believe the most defensive course of action is to select that option which you believe to be less likely to cause bodily harm. Which I did.

To say that the other driver is not at fault because they didn't actually strike you is not reasonable. If the other driver left you nowhere else to go, was driving in an unsafe and illegal manner by changing lanes directly into another vehicle...the other driver should be held accountable.

When a car crosses lanes into you, there is no option to stop, speed up or swerve (unless onto the median). A person cannot anticipate that a car driving in another lane will suddenly cross over into their own.

 

[tammy8]

I never said the other driver was not at fault, but in the eyes of an insurance company the fault has little to do with the accident since they never touched your vehicle.

Why could you not have stopped?

Again, I would have did the same thing as you, but I would also be paying for my own damages using my insurance.

 

[Volo]

Why could I not have stopped? Because, even were a car capable of stopping on a dime (and no car is), the other vehicle still would have struck mine. He didn't enter the lane ahead of me but instead into the space already occupied by my car. He would not have cleared my vehicle in his lane change.