Auto Accident - New York - Long Island

Location: New York

Thank you folks for taking a look at this thread. It is long, but I felt that detail was necessary to show the true extent of the circumstances. I look forward to your comments.

Image of accident scene layout: http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7821/accidentep7.jpg

Description:

The intersection has stop lights for every direction of traffic.

I was on the main road (car marked: ME) going straight east bound on the map I made.

I had passed the light on green, which is of course... disputed by the other individual involved.

To my main road, there was a perpendicular road to my right. In this perpendicular road, there was a truck in the left lane (truck marked T) and a white sedan was in the right lane (white sedan marked X).

Before I passed the truck that was waiting for his/her red light in the left lane of the perpendicular road, I realized and saw simply by the extra set of tires that there was another vehicle to its right. I saw that it was inching forward and I dramatically decreased my speed fearing and sensing that the car may either make a right on red (which is legal on Long Island) or simply blow through the red light without taking any additional precaution.

My suspicion was correct and before I could make anymore substantial adjustments to my speed, the car leaped out onto the main road resulting in an accident.
The front right of my vehicle was damaged, airbags were deployed, and the windshield was cracked on the right as a result.

As far as the other car is concerned, I am not sure about the damage of the other vehicle. I remained in my seat waiting for the officer. The driver of the vehicle is well enough to come out and yell at me for "running a red light." I am not personally injured, but I did not want to leave the vehicle at the moment in case something was horribly wrong with me.

I found this little tidbit about vehicle operation law in New York State,
§ 1163. Turning movements and required signals. (a) No person shall
turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper
position upon the roadway as required in section eleven hundred sixty,
or turn a vehicle to enter a private road or driveway, or otherwise turn
a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway
unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety. No
person shall so turn any vehicle without giving an appropriate signal in
the manner hereinafter provided.

There were no witnesses and no tapes, so the light can be easily argued by both sides.

However, since there was no clear way for him to go straight, his only options were to turn right, bear right, or turn left. Therefore, I feel that since the truck was creating an obvious obstruction for his view while it was stopped, he should have exercised more caution before entering the intersection on the main road. If he did not see me, he may not have been able to see any pedestrians that were crossing over from the left to the right of the truck he was next to or in the crosswalk which I had passed which in my opinion is an example of the driver's disrespect for reasonable safety standards. I believe that he would have seen me if he was looking out for pedestrians. I exercised caution and tried to mitigate the damage by lowering my speed.

My insurance company has stated that I am not at fault. I do not want my insurance company sued for something they are not responsible for.

Please offer some of your thoughts.

Your insurance company will not be sued. YOU may be sued, but your insurance company will defend you.

ecmst12, oh okay. I was always under the impression that if you are ensured, they must file a claim with the insurance company and can initially only go after the insurance company for damages (except for other circumstances like at-fault bodily injury or death).

Thanks.

Any other thoughts on my case though?

You file a claim with the insurance company, but if you are suing, you sue the driver.

If a claim is filed, your insurance company will defend you from that as well (probably by just denying it to start with.

I was in an accident in 95 in New York. It was at a 4 way intersection with lights. There were no witnesses. The other guy ran a red light and lied. Our insurance companies paid our own damage! Sorry!

Anything else specifically about my case?

Zionist said:

Anything else specifically about my case?

Click to expand...

This is a classic driver vs driver situation. If its his word against yours, he is willing to lie, and you have no witnesses or evidence, then you will each end up having to claim under your own insurance. Your insurance will not pay his damage, and his insurance will not pay yours. Your only other alternative is to sue the other driver and try to convince the judge that the other driver is lying, but neither of you would likely win.

alnorth said:

This is a classic driver vs driver situation. If its his word against yours, he is willing to lie, and you have no witnesses or evidence, then you will each end up having to claim under your own insurance. Your insurance will not pay his damage, and his insurance will not pay yours. Your only other alternative is to sue the other driver and try to convince the judge that the other driver is lying, but neither of you would likely win.

Click to expand...

I'm not an expert on these cases so I have a question. I don't think in all cases like this incident that each driver/ins. co. will have to pay for their own driver.

If one driver's insurance company feels that their driver is not at fault and the same goes for the other driver's insurance co. can't both ins. companys go to arbitration? The results of arbitration could force one insurance company to pay for ALL costs for both drivers.

I ask because I was in an accident a few years ago. I felt (and my ins. co. agreed) that I was not at fault. Same goes for the other driver. We (Ins companys) went to arbitration and my insurance company won. The other driver's insurance company ended up paying for ALL costs for myself and their driver.

Arbitration requires evidence, just like a trial. If there is no evidence, just word vs. word, then neither company would (likely) attempt arb due to no way to prove case.

ecmst12 said:

Arbitration requires evidence, just like a trial. If there is no evidence, just word vs. word, then neither company would (likely) attempt arb due to no way to prove case.

Click to expand...

Ah, good point. In my case my insurance co. and i had evidence to support the case.

According to the police report, he was trying to make a left turn. But he was in the right lane - the car to his left was stopped for the red light. He could not see me because of the SUV, if there was no SUV there would have been a clear view of that blind spot.

That is my evidence, even though unconventional, that he made an illegal left turn from the right lane, and he did not check to see whether a vehicle was already in the intersection.. which I was before he had entered it.

from what I understood a month ago... the case is going to arbitration.

However, after speaking with a representative from my company today, things have become quite complicated. I originally thought our insurance companies mutually agreed to go into arbitration. Now, it seems that my adversary's insurance company is going to arbitration against my insurance company because they paid something out... so they have some sort of 'interest' in this according to the representative. That is the only reason there is an arbitration, not because I had to pay out of pocket for the damages, but because the other insurance company paid for their client's damages.

Also, from what I understood prior to the conversation with the representative today, if the arbitrator's ruling places blame on the other individual, and makes him at-fault for the accident, I thought I would recover the monetary damages that I incurred as a result of the accident. According to the representative, this is not the case. My insurance company paid nothing out to me, so I would receive nothing. However, I paid $6,100~ for repairs.

Bottom line: I do not have collision insurance, so I really am not owed anything according to their reasoning.

Is this justified? If I was not the cause of this accident, and the other individual is, would it not obligate the other individual's insurance company to pay out my monetary losses if they are deemed responsible for the accident?

After the accident I filed a claim with my adversary's insurance company, and it was rejected.

Your insurance company can't recover anything on your behalf because they did not PAY anything on your behalf. If the arb finds in your favor, then you can re-file the claim with the other carrier and they *should* pay you. If arb finds you both at fault, they may not pay anything.

Thank you for your response.

What exactly 'should' they pay though? The full judgment of the arbitrator or what they they 'think' I deserve?