CA :
Here's the diagram of the accident. I was going through a parking lot in the direction which was parallel to the street. The parking lot was was divided by the driveway. I stopped by the driveway at the STOP sign. Just as I started moving I noticed a van which just turned off the street into that driveway. As soon as I crossed over to the other side of the parking lot, I felt my car was hit. The damage was to the passenger side quarter panel behind the rear wheel and to the rear bumper. The van was driven by a 77 year old woman. She did not give a turning signal. Her car got scratches in the front corner on the driver's side. It seems at first she didn't realize she hit me, as she said "Did I do that?". There were no witnesses. Later I contacted other party's insurance and they recorded both of our statements and decided it is 30% my fault, which seemed ridiculous. I was told it is final unless there's additional evidence. So I made a diagram above to make it more clear how it happened. I mentioned that the nature of damages clearly shows she hit me when I already crossed the driveway into the parking area. She had several options to evade the collision, such as stopping or turning away where as I had no control of the situation as I was in front in a moving vehicle and I did not expect a collision. Few days later I found out they increased my fault to 50%. So I asked on what basis, and was told it was based on additional evidence. But there was no evidence, besides that diagram which I sent them. From speaking with one of the agents, I got an understanding that the decision might have been due to a diagram. Their conclusion was that I failed to give right of way and did not take any evasive action. This is absolutely absurd as there was no way for evade the collision on my end as I said before. I proceeded to crossing the driveway as I believed I was at a safe distance to do so. So it seems, while I was trying to prove my 0% fault, I got them to go in the opposite direction? Therefore I ended up shooting myself in the foot? I haven't had any accidents and traffic violations in many years and I'm usually good at avoiding situations like these. I feel like she wasn't paying close attention to the action in front of her and made a turn not expecting me to be there in that parking area. Their view is obviously biased, especially regarding the evasive action which is nonsense. They did not take her age into consideration at all. They are siding with her, while ignoring the facts. But what do you guys think? Am I completely out of line here? Is there way to challenge their decision or any other avenues I can pursue? I can't do it through my own insurance as I don't have collision coverage. Thanks.
Here's the diagram of the accident. I was going through a parking lot in the direction which was parallel to the street. The parking lot was was divided by the driveway. I stopped by the driveway at the STOP sign. Just as I started moving I noticed a van which just turned off the street into that driveway. As soon as I crossed over to the other side of the parking lot, I felt my car was hit. The damage was to the passenger side quarter panel behind the rear wheel and to the rear bumper. The van was driven by a 77 year old woman. She did not give a turning signal. Her car got scratches in the front corner on the driver's side. It seems at first she didn't realize she hit me, as she said "Did I do that?". There were no witnesses. Later I contacted other party's insurance and they recorded both of our statements and decided it is 30% my fault, which seemed ridiculous. I was told it is final unless there's additional evidence. So I made a diagram above to make it more clear how it happened. I mentioned that the nature of damages clearly shows she hit me when I already crossed the driveway into the parking area. She had several options to evade the collision, such as stopping or turning away where as I had no control of the situation as I was in front in a moving vehicle and I did not expect a collision. Few days later I found out they increased my fault to 50%. So I asked on what basis, and was told it was based on additional evidence. But there was no evidence, besides that diagram which I sent them. From speaking with one of the agents, I got an understanding that the decision might have been due to a diagram. Their conclusion was that I failed to give right of way and did not take any evasive action. This is absolutely absurd as there was no way for evade the collision on my end as I said before. I proceeded to crossing the driveway as I believed I was at a safe distance to do so. So it seems, while I was trying to prove my 0% fault, I got them to go in the opposite direction? Therefore I ended up shooting myself in the foot? I haven't had any accidents and traffic violations in many years and I'm usually good at avoiding situations like these. I feel like she wasn't paying close attention to the action in front of her and made a turn not expecting me to be there in that parking area. Their view is obviously biased, especially regarding the evasive action which is nonsense. They did not take her age into consideration at all. They are siding with her, while ignoring the facts. But what do you guys think? Am I completely out of line here? Is there way to challenge their decision or any other avenues I can pursue? I can't do it through my own insurance as I don't have collision coverage. Thanks.
