This one is "Unbelievable"

Accident occurred in Hollywood, CA

First, I apologize for the length of this message, however this is one heck of an ordeal and story... (The street names are unimportant, just used them for better flow of writing)

Basically, a guy shot out of a parking lot from a Chevron station, to make an illegal left hand turn onto Franklin (he had to cross two lanes of opposing traffic AND a double yellow line. I'm heading down Franklin, about to make a left at the green light onto northbound highland. This guy in a white honda flies out of the parking lot, at an angle, and ultimately we collide, head-on.

We managed to move our vehicles onto Hillcrest, a small side street (without a light, but Hillcrest has a stop sign) beside us, exchange information (insurance, etc...) and we were actually able to drive away (barely, considering the damage)... Neither of us were mad, nor yelling, and we agreed we would let the insurance companies figure this out. There were no personal witnesses (just other traffic and passer-by). However, there were a few people who helped direct traffic as we got off the main road, but I didn't know where they came from or where they went. I got home, called my insurance company (Progressive), and filed a claim.

Progressive calls me the next morning, tells me that the other driver, given my details of the event, was at fault, and he filed a claim for me against the other driver's insurance (AIG Insurance). Great.... or so I thought. I get a call later that afteroon from my insurance again. He says I have a problem, and the other driver has produced a witness. He said the witness is backing up the other driver's story, and the other driver's story was completely different. Apparently the other driver now says he was at a light at a completely different intersection (a block away), making a left turn on a green light, when I ran a red light and struck him. You can imagine my surprise! "WHAT!?!?", I exclaim, "That whole story is bogus!", but my insurance company says that because I have no witness, and he does, and they "investigated" the witness and feel he was credible and has no relation to the other driver, my claim is being denied, and they are paying the other driver. This is where it gets good...

Now, those who know me, know I'm a great guy, very nice, and VERY honest. But most importantly, I'm also never a person someone should ever try to cross or screw over. Yeah, I'm one of those "you don't know who you just messed with, do you?" kind of folks. I wasn't going to let this guy get away with this. But, I thought, what can I do?

Here's what I did: I went into my office, printed up 100 flyers asking for help and witnesses, expressing that I only wanted HONEST people who really did see the accident, as I will not be paying anyone to support me and I will not be "buying testimony". I drove to where the accident occured, parked, and put my feet to the street in 107 degree humid weather. I knocked on doors, I left flyers on cars, on lightposts, crosswalks, you name it. I finally stopped a lady who was walking, and asked "Do you live in this area?". She replied yes. And I asked, "Did you happen to see an accident right here last night?". She said no, but before I even had time to feel let-down in my search she added, "But my husband did". OH MY GOD!!!! A Random person, and I found someone, she called her husband right there from her cell phone, confirmed he saw it, and he even described the accident and the vehicles. He said he would be happy to talk to my insurance adjuster (after telling him what the other driver is now claiming happened). Now the playing field is leveled, we EACH have a witness, eventhough I know mine is honest, and the other witness is a liar. But that wasn't all...

I went over to the Chevron gas station the guy had pulled out of. Well, looky there, it was a surveillance camera, and it was pointed directly at where he pulled out and hit me, and would have even caught the actual impact, and where we pulled to exchange information. Unfortunately, the station was anything but helpful, and would not even so much as change the tapes while I got an attorney to try and retrieve the video. Apparently I was told it records over itself every 3 days, and so now the video is gone.

Anyway, in the short 10 minute drive back home, two more people called who live (and have balconies over looking) right where the accident occurred. They saw my flyer I taped on their doors, and called and said that yes, they were home, heard the accident, and within mere seconds, had come onto their balconies and saw it. That's TWO more witnesses. Then a day later, while at dinner, I got another phone call (mind you, it had been a couple days now, and I thought I'd found everyone I could). The man on the other end of the line said he was one of the people who helped direct traffic!!! He lived in the area, and saw my flyer on a light post! He also said he had two other friends that were with him that night who also helped and saw the accident. He said his friends would happily also serve as witnesses for me. Here's where I now stand:

Me, telling the truth and with at least 4, if not 6 credible witnesses that I went out and found on my own, who live right where the accident occurred.

Him, one witness who I know is lying.

The accident is now over a week old, and no one has claimed liability yet. I hired an attorney and they are hiring a private investigator to interview my witnesses. My insurance company already spoke to my witnesses and they are now denying liability and thankfully, I stopped them from issuing the other driver any checks. I had my vehicle looked at yesterday by the other insurance company, and they came back with such a low amount ($830 for a head-on?!?!?), I thought they were joking. I spoke to MY insurance company today, looking for an update. He said that the other insurance company must still be doing their investigation, and from what he understands, the other driver has now hired his OWN attorney. Question 1, is this going to get ugly?

Here's my other question, and this one might be a little trickier. It applies to ALL my witnesses. The accident occurred at 12:30am, so most folks were inside at that point, not out on the street. None of my witnesses actually saw the accident, but rather heard the accident, and in only seconds, were outside looking at it, WHILE we were still in the street, in position of the accident. HIS witness is claiming to have SEEN the accident (mind you, he is lying, as any honest witness wouldn't have changed the location of the wreck, so I know he or she must also be lying about actually seeing the accident). It would have been literally impossible for our cars to have flown an entire block away from where he claims the impact happened, and all MY witnesses saw us, albeit immediately following the crash, right where it really DID occur. Is his one witness more credible than my witnesses because his claims to have seen the wreck? Do I trump him with the quantity of my witnesses though? Wouldn't someone investigate how we could have ended up where all my witnesses saw us, if the accident occurred where he's claiming (a block away)? If I had really ran some red light, and he was really making a left turn, wouldn't (A), the damages be into his driver's door, not the front? and (B), wouldn't I be going full speed to run a light, and cause massive, if not total damage to his car and my truck?

Because everything is still in "investigation" status, I'm very concerned about this. I did the dirty work to find people as witnesses, and is it possible, I might still be found at fault through his lying?

A couple final questions:
I was willing to just let this be handled by insurance only, but now because of the facts I stated above, I've hired the attorney. And, as mentioned, they got an investigator to interview my witnesses. That was a cost of $90 per witness and will come out of my settlement (should I win). I would NOT have had to hire an attorney if he had not lied, and I would not have had to pay an investigator to interview witnesses if he had not lied. If I win this settlement, it will also be proven that he lied (as he gave a recorded statement to my insurance company). Am I correct in thinking I can then take him personally to small claims court to recoup the investigator costs and what the attorney takes from the settlement (they are working on contingency), as his own dishonesty forced me to incur those costs? Can I further sue him and his witness, maybe $500 each for Slander? I'm a nice guy, but he lied and tried to disrupt my life, and blame me for an accident I didn't cause. I want him to learn a lesson.

ALL advice will be welcomed, and appreciated. Thank You!

Jason CollinsWhat is the name of your state?

That's why you never move the vehicles until the cops tell you to.

Always call the cops...it's the people who say "we can figure this out without the cops" when the cops should be called. Since you're going through insurance, why wouldn't you call the cops?

Even when people have settled directly with me without their insurance, I always get the police report. Accidents and liability always get ugly.

If the other guy's witness's have lied in a sworn statement and it's proven that they lied they expose themselves to other problems and they guy who hit you loses credibility.

Yeah, it's going to get ugly. Good luck.

Without injuries what type of a settlement are you looking for?

They're not going to pay for your attorney, nor the investigator. Your insurance company may have been able to do the exact same thing, had you given them an opportunity to do so. That's what they do for a living. Progressive happens to do it pretty well. A "contested" accident may take weeks to investigate. You didn't give them the opportunity to do so.

Good job locating witnesses.

fcobarr said:

That's why you never move the vehicles until the cops tell you to.

Always call the cops...it's the people who say "we can figure this out without the cops" when the cops should be called. Since you're going through insurance, why wouldn't you call the cops?

Even when people have settled directly with me without their insurance, I always get the police report. Accidents and liability always get ugly.

If the other guy's witness's have lied in a sworn statement and it's proven that they lied they expose themselves to other problems and they guy who hit you loses credibility.

Yeah, it's going to get ugly. Good luck.

Without injuries what type of a settlement are you looking for?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in California, or at least the City of Los Angeles, the police will NOT come, unless you request an ambulance. I know this because after the Chevron station refused to hold the survelliance tape showing the wreck, I went to the Hollywood Police and explained the whole thing to them. The seargent specifically said that to me. "We don't go out to accidents except when an ambulance is required, a stolen vehicle is involve, a hit and run, or a drunk driver". Go figure, this is LA.

There WERE injuries, as I braced my arms on the wheel for impact. I didn't feel them until the next day, but went to the hospital, got checked out and x-rayed, diagnosed with shoulder and neck sprains, and was prescribed by the physician pain meds, muscle relaxers, chiropractic, massage, and ultrasonic therapy. The day after that, I started to feel where the seat belt pulled on my chest, but I figured that was just bruising and haven't done anything about that.

moburkes said:

They're not going to pay for your attorney, nor the investigator. Your insurance company may have been able to do the exact same thing, had you given them an opportunity to do so. That's what they do for a living. Progressive happens to do it pretty well. A "contested" accident may take weeks to investigate. You didn't give them the opportunity to do so.

Good job locating witnesses.

Click to expand...

I would have let the insurance companies figure this all out, as that was the original plan. However when I found out he was lying, My first instinct was "uh-oh, I better get a lawyer". I hired the attorney BEFORE I went and found any witnesses. I hired them as soon as humanly possible when I found out the story he was giving. It was AFTER hiring them, that I went in pursuit of witnesses. I felt it would be necessary to provide the names and numbers of anyone I found to not just my insurance, but also to my attorney, as I did not want to withold anything from the lawyer.

But I understand what you are saying. I might still make the attempt. Even if it's just to disrupt his schedule for a court hearing. I have no remorse for causing him as much inconvenience as I can. People who lie in ways that affect innocent people are the lowest form of human to me, and deserve what they get. I appreciate your response, and Thank You!

jjcmontana said:

The seargent specifically said that to me. "We don't go out to accidents except when an ambulance is required, a stolen vehicle is involve, a hit and run, or a drunk driver". Go figure, this is LA.

Click to expand...

Well you were just handed, post facto, a 5 pound bag of lazy cop crapola.

Had you not moved your vehicles from a head on collision until at least being directed to do so, you would be in a better position. Do you think the police would not come with your cars blocking traffic?

You elected to move the cars and not even call the police. No wonder you are almost totally SOL.

You will have a tough road to hoe, and it is going to take time.

Why California is "backwards"

xylene said:

Well you were just handed, post facto, a 5 pound bag of lazy cop crapola.

Had you not moved your vehicles from a head on collision until at least being directed to do so, you would be in a better position. Do you think the police would not come with your cars blocking traffic?

You elected to move the cars and not even call the police. No wonder you are almost totally SOL.

You will have a tough road to hoe, and it is going to take time.

Click to expand...

Look, I didn't grow up in California, but I can show where I scored perfect scores on my DMV tests here when switching to a California liscence. If you look at this web page from the California DMV: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs65thru66.htm

You will see, I did exactly what the handbook instructs us to do in an accident. Especially point 2 and 3. There were no apparent injuries known at the time of the accident, as I didn't start to hurt until the next day. And #3, clearly states getting out of the road. I know that sounds ridiculous. Where I came from, the law said to only move the vehicles if the TOTAL damages to BOTH vehicles or property, appear to be $400 or less. If it looked like more, or anyone was injured, you called the police and left the cars where they were. Such a smarter way, but California is so screwed up in always making policy and law which benefits no one. Thank You for your response.

With the number of unbiased witnesses you have placing you at the intersection, the other witness probably won't even show up for court. He knows he's lying, and won't want to get into trouble for lying on the stand! I had an accident where the other driver had a witness blaming me who was lying, to make matters worse he was a major in the army. But when he found out he was going to have to lie under oath, he changed his mind!

jjcmontana said:

I went to the Hollywood Police and explained the whole thing to them. The seargent specifically said that to me. "We don't go out to accidents except when an ambulance is required, a stolen vehicle is involve, a hit and run, or a drunk driver". Go figure, this is LA.

Click to expand...

Actually, state law only requires the police under those situations or one involving another criminal allegation (such as hit and run). Many agencies do not respond to non-injury collisions because they have little to do with police work, and everything to do with gathering info for a private entity (the insurance companies) - info that can be obtained, generally, by the parties at the scene.

Traffic collisions are time consuming for the officers and the agencies, and doing them for no reason is pointless and a waste of tax dollars and manpower.

If there were injuries, a report should have been made. A late report is effectively useless as per CA state regulations, law enforcement can NOT make a determination of fault on late (aka "counter") reports.


- Carl

CdwJava said:

Actually, state law only requires the police under those situations or one involving another criminal allegation (such as hit and run). Many agencies do not respond to non-injury collisions because they have little to do with police work, and everything to do with gathering info for a private entity (the insurance companies) - info that can be obtained, generally, by the parties at the scene.

Traffic collisions are time consuming for the officers and the agencies, and doing them for no reason is pointless and a waste of tax dollars and manpower.

If there were injuries, a report should have been made. A late report is effectively useless as per CA state regulations, law enforcement can NOT make a determination of fault on late (aka "counter") reports.

Click to expand...

Which for the California civilian, or the civilian of any state, boils down to:

You must always operate under assumption that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident that substantially damages your vehicle.

xylene said:

Which for the California civilian, or the civilian of any state, boils down to:

You must always operate under assumption that you are injured in a motor vehicle accident that substantially damages your vehicle.

Click to expand...

Sooo ... you would advocate someone complain of pain or injury even when they are not aware of any? That COULD be criminal.

- Carl

Important Update

Well, I was incorrect in one thing, and that is the dollar amount of property damage in California before you can call the police. As it turns out, it is $750, not $1000 as I previously mentioned. Also, I found that you can always call the ambulance (and thus, have the police come), by just saying you "think" the other driver might be injured. You can always send the ambulance away. You can't get in trouble for being safe rather than sorry.

Also, as to my OWN situation? I got a letter from my insurance company today (Progressive), informing me that they have concluded their investigation, and have come to a decision. The liability or fault placed upon myself is listed as 0%, and the other driver (the lying one) is at 100%. They go on to say this was based on my recorded statement, and the recorded statement of 3 witnesses I had found. Woo Hoo, Justice prevails!

-Jason

Huh??? gotta go!

jjcmontana said:

I would have let the insurance companies figure this all out, as that was the original plan. However when I found out he was lying, My first instinct was "uh-oh, I better get a lawyer". I hired the attorney BEFORE I went and found any witnesses. I hired them as soon as humanly possible when I found out the story he was giving. It was AFTER hiring them, that I went in pursuit of witnesses. I felt it would be necessary to provide the names and numbers of anyone I found to not just my insurance, but also to my attorney, as I did not want to withold anything from the lawyer.

But I understand what you are saying. I might still make the attempt. Even if it's just to disrupt his schedule for a court hearing. I have no remorse for causing him as much inconvenience as I can. People who lie in ways that affect innocent people are the lowest form of human to me, and deserve what they get. I appreciate your response, and Thank You!

Click to expand...

I meant that you didn't give YOUR insurance company to opportunity to do their job. You won't be able to recover the money that you've spent.

jjcmontana said:

Well, I was incorrect in one thing, and that is the dollar amount of property damage in California before you can call the police.

Click to expand...

There is no dollar damage that triggers a police report ... there is a $750 trigger for reporting collisions to the DMV, but NOT to the police.

As it turns out, it is $750, not $1000 as I previously mentioned. Also, I found that you can always call the ambulance (and thus, have the police come), by just saying you "think" the other driver might be injured. You can always send the ambulance away. You can't get in trouble for being safe rather than sorry.

Click to expand...

No, but if no one is injured, the officer CAN simply have the parties exchange information. Plus, the officer is also likely to write what is referred to as a "PDO" report (Property Damage Only). These reports (the CHP 555-3) are not recorded with the state, and are not given a case number. They are given to the respective parties and then discarded by the officer after a short period ... they also do not generally indicate the party most at fault.

Also, as to my OWN situation? I got a letter from my insurance company today (Progressive), informing me that they have concluded their investigation, and have come to a decision. The liability or fault placed upon myself is listed as 0%, and the other driver (the lying one) is at 100%. They go on to say this was based on my recorded statement, and the recorded statement of 3 witnesses I had found. Woo Hoo, Justice prevails!

Click to expand...

That's good news for you.

- Carl