Car Insurance Co will only pay 90% damages...

I'm driving along a main avenue when a young driver goes through a STOP sign and turns towards my avenue and forces me to swerve car. We have an accident and his insurance company will only pay me 90% in damages. I want to take them to small claims court because despite my letter of complaint to president of Liberty Mutual they are not budging. Since when are WE liable for accidents when others ignore STOP signs? Do I have a case for small claims court? Please help! I have paperwork to file but I'd hate to waste my time. INsurance says that based on points of impact I'm 10% at fault!!! My driving record is spotless and I'm 58 years old.

And what does YOUR insurance company say??? They normally will step in under YOUR coverage and pay the offset.

As to civil matter, they obviously investigated and found that their insured was 90%, and you 10%, for the damages. And since they have a whole 'slew' of appraisers and adjusters, all willing to testify as to the accuracy of their assessment, you will need experts to prove that you were NOT liable for 10%. Can you provide those experts?? Can you do so in a cost manner to defend the value of the 10% liability that you are stuck with???

Personally, I feel that you might have a hard time justifying the cost (money, time and ordeal) that you might incur just to have a (slim??) chance at winning.

Speaking from a recent situation not unlike yours, either let your insurance get involved, or if you don't have insurance, take the 90% and move on. Unless you have SUBSTANTIAL assets and a lot of time, they will wear you down (since they do have those assets).

10% Liable???

Thanks for the quick reply!

To answer your question, the reason why my insurance won't get involved is because my car is from 1987 and I chose not to have collision insurance on it.

I'm disappointed that you feel the court will demand proof from me about my innocence in the accident. Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on them? They are giving me 90% which is clear that I'm not to blame. It seems to me like an insurance scam. They do this to thousands of people because they know the people are going to take the 90% and walk and not pursue it with a lawyer.

I'm under the impression that I have a good case here. The guy could have killed me or injured me had I not reacted quickly enough.

I don't know if I should pursue this anymore. Help.

Madeline

The thing you don't understand is that if you decide to sue them, the burden of proof is on you to show the court that you should prevail. This is called proving your case. The insurance company will only have to show the court that you failed to prove your case.

First, understand, I am NOT a friend of the insurance companies, but do have a little experience being across the table from them. Apparently, they have decided, right or wrong, that you were liable for 10% of the accident. Without knowing what they know and the particulars of this accident (which is far beyond the scope of this forum), no one here can determine percentage of blame.

Now, with that out, I disagree with your assumption that they do this to "thousands of people" because the majority of the drivers DO carry collision insurance. And if you had chosen to do so, you would also be covered. You chose not to, so you are basically 'self insured' for your percentage of liability. That is one of the hazards when you made this choice.

Bottom line, the insurance underwriter decided that you are 10% liable. You disagree. It is up to you to prove your case, either in court or to their insurance company. Failing that, you will only recover 90% of the damages.


[Edited by Halket on 06-16-2001 at 06:28 PM]