Police report on my side, but insurance company jerking me around

[rycw]

California.

My collision basically boils down to who had the green light. In fact, I did, and the police report backs me up - placing blame squarely on the other driver. But the insurance company is standing by their lying client and jerking me around.

Unfortunately I do not have a witness. It was a pretty straightforward case of her making a right turn on red as I was going straight through an intersection proceeding onto an on-ramp, and consequently plowing into my side. She made several false statements to the CHP officer who took our statements immediately after the accident:

1 - She claimed she had a green arrow when, in fact, the light in question is only solid green (officer observed this)
2 - She claimed that she was "established in her lane," which was preposterous based on the physical evidence (damage to my side and her front)
3 - In attempting to show (2), she claimed that the collision occurred about 100 feet up the road from where it actually did. The officer dismissed this as physically impossible.

So my statement was far more credible and, consequently, the police report SUMMARY section follows my narrative to a T (including that I had a green light). And the CAUSE section places blame squarely on her for failure to yield at an intersection. Both CAUSE and SUMMARY sections "based on statements and damage," the report says. The officer did not, however, cite her for running a red light. The SUMMARY section does note her inconsistent statements regarding location of the collision, whether she saw me, and the "established in my lane" nonsense, but I was disappointed to see that it does not mention her falsely claiming she had a green arrow.

She kept up her false narrative with her insurance company and so they're telling me that they'll accept 25% liability as their "investigation" shows that I ran a red light. I do not have collision insurance and so anything short of 100% is unacceptable to me.

It's been a week since I sent them the police report, and I haven't even heard from them. This is a large insurance company, not some fly-by-night outfit.

The claims adjuster initially said that it's my word against hers and he can't accuse his client of lying and so there you go. He told me to send him the police report if it "proves" I had a green light. Uh, proves? I don't have video footage or a witness, but I do have a CHP report that sides 100% with me.

My insurance company told me that they're accepting zero liability and are basically telling the other guys to pound sand.

Just wondering what I can expect from this? Is a large, reputable insurance company really going to stand by a lying client rather than defer to a CHP collision report? Might they attempt to accept something greater than 25% but less than 100% liability?

Thank you for any insight.

 

[Zigner]

California.

My collision basically boils down to who had the green light. In fact, I did, and the police report backs me up - placing blame squarely on the other driver. But the insurance company is standing by their lying client and jerking me around.

Unfortunately I do not have a witness. It was a pretty straightforward case of her making a right turn on red as I was going straight through an intersection proceeding onto an on-ramp, and consequently plowing into my side. She made several false statements to the CHP officer who took our statements immediately after the accident:

1 - She claimed she had a green arrow when, in fact, the light in question is only solid green (officer observed this)
2 - She claimed that she was "established in her lane," which was preposterous based on the physical evidence (damage to my side and her front)
3 - In attempting to show (2), she claimed that the collision occurred about 100 feet up the road from where it actually did. The officer dismissed this as physically impossible.

So my statement was far more credible and, consequently, the police report SUMMARY section follows my narrative to a T (including that I had a green light). And the CAUSE section places blame squarely on her for failure to yield at an intersection. Both CAUSE and SUMMARY sections "based on statements and damage," the report says. The officer did not, however, cite her for running a red light. The SUMMARY section does note her inconsistent statements regarding location of the collision, whether she saw me, and the "established in my lane" nonsense, but I was disappointed to see that it does not mention her falsely claiming she had a green arrow.

She kept up her false narrative with her insurance company and so they're telling me that they'll accept 25% liability as their "investigation" shows that I ran a red light. I do not have collision insurance and so anything short of 100% is unacceptable to me.

It's been a week since I sent them the police report, and I haven't even heard from them. This is a large insurance company, not some fly-by-night outfit.

The claims adjuster initially said that it's my word against hers and he can't accuse his client of lying and so there you go. He told me to send him the police report if it "proves" I had a green light. Uh, proves? I don't have video footage or a witness, but I do have a CHP report that sides 100% with me.

My insurance company told me that they're accepting zero liability and are basically telling the other guys to pound sand.

Just wondering what I can expect from this? Is a large, reputable insurance company really going to stand by a lying client rather than defer to a CHP collision report? Might they attempt to accept something greater than 25% but less than 100% liability?

Thank you for any insight.

The police report is hearsay. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the police report assigns blame (CDWJava can explain why better than I if he sees this thread.) The insurance company is free to make their own determination. Your recourse is to either let your insurance company handle it (if you are fully insured), or to sue the other driver. Note that I said "other driver" - you don't sue the insurance company.

 

[rycw]

The police report is hearsay. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the police report assigns blame (CDWJava can explain why better than I if he sees this thread.) The insurance company is free to make their own determination. Your recourse is to either let your insurance company handle it (if you are fully insured), or to sue the other driver. Note that I said "other driver" - you don't sue the insurance company.

Under the CAUSE section:

"[Driver's name] caused this collision by violating vehicle section ... etc. etc."

This does not constitute an assignment of blame?

 

[rycw]

Under the CAUSE section:

"[Driver's name] caused this collision by violating vehicle section ... etc. etc."

This does not constitute an assignment of blame?

Vehicle code section, that is.

"The cause was determined by the statements and the vehicle damage."

Does the officer's assessment of what happened carry less weight than the statement of an actual witness?

 

[Zigner]

Does the officer's assessment of what happened carry less weight than the statement of an actual witness?

Exactly - the officer did not witness the collision. The report is hearsay and the insurance company is free to make their own determination. Sue the bad guy (or let your insurance handle it, if applicable.)

 

[rycw]

Exactly - the officer did not witness the collision. The report is hearsay and the insurance company is free to make their own determination. Sue the bad guy (or let your insurance handle it, if applicable.)

Ok.

Are there not standard business practices that dictate (or provide guidelines, whatever) that a police report should be given *some* weight in these matters? Not a legal question, I know, but I have a hard time believing that the claims adjuster will see the police report, have a laugh, toss it in the trash, and go about his day. Surely there must be discussions within the claims department that, lack of a witness notwithstanding, their client's story is suspect and the other guy (me) is getting screwed. Perhaps I'm being naive.

And what standing will I have in court? I mean, the police report and my own credibility are all I have. If the insurance company can so freely dismiss the report, who's to say a judge won't do the same?

 

[Zigner]

Ok.

Are there not standard business practices that dictate (or provide guidelines, whatever) that a police report should be given *some* weight in these matters? Not a legal question, I know, but I have a hard time believing that the claims adjuster will see the police report, have a laugh, toss it in the trash, and go about his day. Surely there must be discussions within the claims department that, lack of a witness notwithstanding, their client's story is suspect and the other guy (me) is getting screwed. Perhaps I'm being naive.

And what standing will I have in court? I mean, the police report and my own credibility are all I have. If the insurance company can so freely dismiss the report, who's to say a judge won't do the same?

The insurance company has a duty to their client, not to you.

Why don't you have adequate insurance?

 

[rycw]

The insurance company has a duty to their client, not to you.

Why don't you have adequate insurance?

I don't have collision because it's an old car and I'm a safe driver. That's on me, of course, but it certainly doesn't preclude my desire to be made whole for something that was entirely the result of another's negligence.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[Zigner]

I don't have collision because it's an old car and I'm a safe driver. That's on me, of course, but it certainly doesn't preclude my desire to be made whole for something that was entirely the result of another's negligence.

Thank you for your comments.

Then I'm confident that this will be under the small claims court limit in CA. Good luck with your matter.

 

[rycw]

Then I'm confident that this will be under the small claims court limit in CA. Good luck with your matter.

No thoughts on how court might play out? Again, all I have is the police report and my own credibility.

I'm guessing this kind of thing happens all the time. He said, she said, and all there is to settle it is a police report. But if it's just hearsay is it even admissible? I'd rather not waste my time if the judge is going to say, "No witness = no case."

 

[Zigner]

No thoughts on how court might play out? Again, all I have is the police report and my own credibility.

I'm guessing this kind of thing happens all the time. He said, she said, and all there is to settle it is a police report. But if it's just hearsay is it even admissible? I'd rather not waste my time if the judge is going to say, "No witness = no case."

Based ONLY on what you have posted, I think you have better-than-even odds. Even though it is hearsay, you might get lucky and be able to get the police report looked at as evidence in small claims court, particularly if the other party doesn't object. Beyond that, there is really no way any of us could guess.

 

[rycw]

Based ONLY on what you have posted, I think you have better-than-even odds. Even though it is hearsay, you might get lucky and be able to get the police report looked at as evidence in small claims court, particularly if the other party doesn't object. Beyond that, there is really no way any of us could guess.

Ok. Thanks again.

 

[CdwJava]

The police REPORT is not evidence. However, the officer's testimony as to his investigation IS evidence - should the matter ever go to court (and it probably will not). As a collision investigator, I have conducted perhaps 700 or so investigations of traffic collisions and been subpoenaed to civil court twice, I believe. I was never called to the stand to testify in either of those two instances.

And, yes, in CA a collision report will list a PCF (primary collision Factor) on page 2 in the upper left hand corner. The officer can assign the PCF to one party, or assign NO PCF at all. In the narrative, this PCF will be articulated under the heading, "CAUSE" as the OP stated. The PCF s most often a Vehicle Code violation.

However, the law does not require the insurance companies to abide by the police officer's conclusions. They are free to make their own determination using whatever criteria they might desire.