Help! Insurance company denies liability

[ALawyer]

Why do you feel that their testimony as to the words of another will be allowed?

ETA: For reference - https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-051.html (and, yes, there may be exceptions that apply in there )

The defendant's words would be an admission, and would be admissible in court.

 

[Zigner]

The defendant's words would be an admission, and would be admissible in court.

That's not specifically an option under Nevada law, unless you are actually referring to this:

NRS 51.085  Present sense impressions.  A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.

or this:

NRS 51.095  Excited utterances.  A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.

Neither is triggered simply because it's an admission.

 

[don11011]

If there was record of a call made to the police department in an attempt to file a report, does it helps the defendants testimony?

 

[Zigner]

If there was record of a call made to the police department in an attempt to file a report, does it helps the defendants testimony?

No - it really means nothing.

 

[don11011]

No - it really means nothing.

What has apparently happened is that the other driver (now recognizing that having a fully chargeable accident is likely to impact his insurance rates) has changed his or her story, and now denying liability. His or her insurer is now offering half of the damages in the hope you'll take it, go away and so they will be ahead $1,500. You have 3 alternatives:

1) Take the $1,500, save yourself the hassle, and eat a $1,500 loss.

2) Sue the other driver in small claims court for $3,000 (assuming the amount you can sue for in the local small claims court is that high). If you sue it's almost certain the other driver will report the suit to his insurer and what likely will happen next is the insurer may make you a somewhat better offer if you'll agree to withdraw the suit, as otherwise it has to hire a lawyer to defend its insured.

If you don't accept its higher offer and continue with the suit at the trial you will need to be able to prove both that the other driver damaged your car, and the damages to your car really are $3,000 which will require you to provide evidence that is admissible in the small claims court. As I am not a NV lawyer and don't know the rules in NV but if the repairs were not completed so you can't produce a paid repair bill, you may be able to be show the cost to repair the car using a written estimate or two, or you may have to bring in a mechanic to testify that the cost to repair the car is $3,000.

As to whether the other driver was at fault, if you don't want it to be just your word against his, you'll want to have at least one and hopefully both of the 2 witnesses who heard him admit it was his fault in court with you to testify what they heard him say. (They didn't have to witness the accident itself to testify as to what he said.) The defendant's lawyer likely will try to show possible bias by pointing out that the witnesses are your friends or co-workers, but if they seem honest that will carry great weight with the judge, and judges generally can tell when someone is lying. The other side's lawyer may try to argue the accident was partially your fault (such as if you parked your vehicle improperly, or it was moving) so blame, and damages, would be apportioned, so be prepared for that.

3) Consult a local lawyer who may have yet a better idea (and be prepared to pay the lawyer for his or her time as I'd doubt any competent lawyer who is not a close friend would take on a small property damage claim on a contingency basis). The lawyer might know the insurance company, and might be able to make a phone call or write the type of letter that gets the insurance company to give the matter serious reconsideration. While a local lawyer is the best bet, if it's not up your alley and you are confident you will be able to prove the extent and cost of damages to your car, I'd file suit in small claims court and see what the insurer does. I'd bet they raise their $1,500 offer by 50% (to $2,250) so they don't have to hire a lawyer plus take on the risk of paying out the full measure of damages in addition. Given that the small claims filing fee is far less than $1,500 it's a relatively low risk way of proceeding. But my best advice would be to speak with a local lawyer. (Sorry I got the amount at issue wrong in my original answer, which I have now edited to correct the amount of damages and the insurer's original offer.)

The limitation is 10000$ in Nevada small claims court with a small filing fee of 109. I will find out if the witnesses are willing to show up in court to testify.

 

[ALawyer]

Why do you feel that their testimony as to the words of another will be allowed?

ETA: For reference - https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-051.html (and, yes, there may be exceptions that apply in there )

The statement made by a party to the action t's not hearsay as it is

That's not specifically an option under Nevada law, unless you are actually referring to this:

NRS 51.085  Present sense impressions.  A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.

or this:

NRS 51.095  Excited utterances.  A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule.

Neither is triggered simply because it's an admission.

You've been assuming the statement was hearsay. But the statement made by the driver of the car would not be hearsay in the first place as under Nevada's revised statutes 51.035 (as I read it, although remember I am NOT a Nevada licensed lawyer)  ""Hearsay" means a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless:
....
3.  The statement is offered against a party and is: (a) The party’s own statement, in either the party’s individual or a representative capacity....

Here the driver's statement that he was at fault would be his own statement, and the friends who heard that statement could testify to what they heard him say.

 

[xylene]

Take the 1500 and then go to a store and buy a candle, light it and wish a pox on the person who wronged you.

People expect god will grant them spiritual forgiveness, they can accpet some spiritual punishment.

 

[Just Blue]

Take the 1500 and then go to a store and buy a candle, light it and wish a pox on the person who wronged you.

People expect god will grant them spiritual forgiveness, they can accpet some spiritual punishment.

I don't think it's God who grants the pox wishes. It's the Goddess of Karmatic Justice.

 

[don11011]

I don't expect any Gods to intervene in matters such as these. God has better and bigger matters to attend, but never the less I wish for justice. In my case it's too common and

The statement made by a party to the action t's not hearsay as it is


You've been assuming the statement was hearsay. But the statement made by the driver of the car would not be hearsay in the first place as under Nevada's revised statutes 51.035 (as I read it, although remember I am NOT a Nevada licensed lawyer)  ""Hearsay" means a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless:
....
3.  The statement is offered against a party and is: (a) The party’s own statement, in either the party’s individual or a representative capacity....

Here the driver's statement that he was at fault would be his own statement, and the friends who heard that statement could testify to what they heard him say.

As of today, the driver at fault is claiming I ran into his vehicle and accepts no liability. I requested the adjuster to release any evidence and/or witnesses behind this absurd claim. The adjuster stated they have zero evidence or witnesses, but only words from their insured. They kept changing their story.

 

[HighwayMan]

This is why civilian dash cams are getting popular.

 

[don11011]

Agree. I will be getting one.

 

[Zigner]

I was in an accident in which a vehicle pulled away from the curb, crossed the first lane of traffic and side-swiped me in the second lane. At the scene, he truthfully told the police (and they documented it in the report and assigned fault to him) what had happened. He later told his insurer that he had been traveling in the first lane and I moved over on him. Once his insurance company got the police report they accepted full liability. Had the other driver kept his mouth shut at the scene, I would be stuck with an at-fault accident.

Since then, I ALWAYS use a dash cam if at all possible.

 

[pandes]

Indeed, very interesting thread

 

[HighwayMan]

Indeed, very interesting thread

It is unnecessary and very annoying for you to be making these types of comments in threads. This isn't Facebook or Twitter. Unless you have something substantive to contribute or a question please avoid making these comments.