Unethical Insurance Behavior

[MNOP]

What is the name of your state? California

We were at a complete stop on the freeway during traffic, and got hit by the car behind us with sufficient force to push us into the car ahead, which was also at a stop.

The CHP police report repeatedly, explicitly, and exclusively indicates that the entire fault for the collision was due to the person who hit us from behind. It overtly declares that this person caused the accident, and it even indicates what section of the California vehicle code was violated by that driver.

Unbelievably, the guilty driver's insurance company is now stating that they will pay only 50% of the damages, under the absurd "reasoning" that their driver accounted for only "half the damages". This is in total defiance of the truth and the police report.

Is this kind of insurance claims malfeasance common? Could we successfully sue not merely based on actual total damages (approx $15K), but also pursue a much larger award for punitive damages due to blatantly unethical conduct? Grateful for any comments; thanks.

 

[ecmst12]

Insurance companies are not legally required to go by only the police report when determining fault for an accident. The police officer did not witness the accident and can make mistakes.

However I don't see what their logic could POSSIBLY be for you being 50% liable for being hit from behind while stopped.

Have you reported this to your own insurance company? If you have collision coverage, they will deal with the other driver's insurance and negotiate a fair determination of fault. If you don't, you'll have to obtain a lawyer and pursue a fair settlement in court. But I don't think any punitive damages would apply.

 

[MNOP]

Thanks ecmst12

No, we don't have "Collision" coverage; only "Liability". But of course, we emphatically deny any liability.

The "basis" for the insurance company's behavior is that they say the driver we were forced into gave verbal testimony to them that she was hit twice (ie, separate impacts); which is blatantly false.

The reason she lied is that she concluded (erroneously), that because the guilty driver was from out-of-state, she would not be able to collect from that person's insurance. Now that insurance company is saying they were "told" there were two collisions (again, flagrantly false, and completely contradicted by the police report), so they are only paying 50%.

That liar has now recanted her story to our insurance, and they are therefore denying her claim. Unfortunately, the guilty person's insurance has now "latched" onto the false testimony, giving it total weight over:

1). our testimony; and,
2). the conflicted testimony of the liar; and,
3). the police report.

It is outrageous.

 

[moburkes]

So, if the person in the first vehicle lied about being hit twice, why are you blaming the INSURANCE COMPANY of the rear most vehicle for believing her? How do you know what she was thinking at the time she gave the statement?

Sometimes, the middle vehicle ends up being partially blamed for the simple fact that, had they had an "assured clear distance" the impact from the rear-most vehicle should not have pushed them into the front vehicle.

 

[ISUE4YOU2]

No, we don't have "Collision" coverage; only "Liability". But of course, we emphatically deny any liability.

The "basis" for the insurance company's behavior is that they say the driver we were forced into gave verbal testimony to them that she was hit twice (ie, separate impacts); which is blatantly false.

The reason she lied is that she concluded (erroneously), that because the guilty driver was from out-of-state, she would not be able to collect from that person's insurance. Now that insurance company is saying they were "told" there were two collisions (again, flagrantly false, and completely contradicted by the police report), so they are only paying 50%.

That liar has now recanted her story to our insurance, and they are therefore denying her claim. Unfortunately, the guilty person's insurance has now "latched" onto the false testimony, giving it total weight over:

1). our testimony; and,
2). the conflicted testimony of the liar; and,
3). the police report.

It is outrageous.

You are going to have to sue the owner/operator of the vehicle that hit you from the rear, and the owner/operator of the vehicle you were pushed into will have to be subpoenaed to testify UNDER OATH that she only felt ONE impact. You will not be able to do this in SMALL CLAIMS court because of the dollar amount of damage.

You indicate your damage is $15,000.00, but you do not have collision coverage. How do you calculate you damage to be that amount?