Complicated Death of My Sister

[boliva99]

When you say that "it was shown that she was not at fault," what do you mean? Was the SUV driver placed at fault by the police in the collision? Do you have a copy of the police report? Was your sister listed as taking some action that was indicated as an "associated factor"?

If this was an uncontrolled intersection (i.e. no lights), and the SUV made a left turn in front of her, did the SUV have a stop sign? Was there a stop sign in ANY of the directions?

I also think that in any lawsuit, the sticky note will could cause some serious issues as it will almost certainly be used to cast some doubt on this as an accident,and instead allow for an argument that it was a reckless act or straight up suicide.

As far as I know, the insurance is willing to pay out the issue is that they want to pay my dad. Also, yes I do have a copy of the police report and I am unsure about the "associated factor." It was acknowledged that my sisters headlights were not working and it was 5pm when the accident occurred, therefore my sister was simply not seen by the SUV before they decided to make a left hand turn.

My sister was going straight at an uncontrolled intersection and the SUV was pulling into a mobile home park, no stop signs.

The case is closed and suicide wasn't even a factor, it was never mentioned. However, I do understand why many of you believe its a valid point and could possibly cause doubt.

 

[CdwJava]

As far as I know, the insurance is willing to pay out the issue is that they want to pay my dad. Also, yes I do have a copy of the police report and I am unsure about the "associated factor." It was acknowledged that my sisters headlights were not working and it was 5pm when the accident occurred, therefore my sister was simply not seen by the SUV before they decided to make a left hand turn.

My sister was going straight at an uncontrolled intersection and the SUV was pulling into a mobile home park, no stop signs.

The case is closed and suicide wasn't even a factor, it was never mentioned. However, I do understand why many of you believe its a valid point and could possibly cause doubt.

On the collision report there are some face pages. On the front page (page 1) which party # was your sister assigned?

On page 2, in the upper left corner, there is a box labeled, "Primary Collision Factor". That box has a space for the party number involved, and the vehicle code section of the PCF. What do those say?

To the lower middle right of page 2 there is an area labeled, "Other Associated Factors." What boxes are checked there, and for what parties? (There are columns for each of the corresponding parties on page 1).

In the narrative of the collision report, there will be a "Conclusions" section that should give a reason for the cause of the collision. What does that say?

 

[boliva99]

On the collision report there are some face pages. On the front page (page 1) which party # was your sister assigned?

On page 2, in the upper left corner, there is a box labeled, "Primary Collision Factor". That box has a space for the party number involved, and the vehicle code section of the PCF. What do those say?

To the lower middle right of page 2 there is an area labeled, "Other Associated Factors." What boxes are checked there, and for what parties? (There are columns for each of the corresponding parties on page 1).

In the narrative of the collision report, there will be a "Conclusions" section that should give a reason for the cause of the collision. What does that say?

My sister was party 2, the primary collision factor has a 2 on the first left box, and section A vc section violated it says 22350 and no checked.
Other associated factors- N, none parent is checked for both parties (1 and 2) and I am unsure about the conclusion. I was emailed a copy of the report and for some reason it had to be cut off on the most important part.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay, then that's not good.

If she is party #2, and the PCF is assigned to Party #2 with the cause being VC 22350 (unsafe speed for conditions), then that means the police concluded that she was at fault for the collision. Additionally, since there appears to be no associated factor assigned to the turning SUV, it appears that the SUV maybe off the hook. Though, a civil court or an insurance company can decide otherwise as they do not have to rely on the conclusions of the police.

 

[boliva99]

Okay, then that's not good.

If she is party #2, and the PCF is assigned to Party #2 with the cause being VC 22350 (unsafe speed for conditions), then that means the police concluded that she was at fault for the collision. Additionally, since there appears to be no associated factor assigned to the turning SUV, it appears that the SUV maybe off the hook. Though, a civil court or an insurance company can decide otherwise as they do not have to rely on the conclusions of the police.

I see, yet I remain confused on why the insurance would just cash out? I know my sister was going stupid fast (as I mentioned before she was always pretty reckless when riding) but the investigator told my mom that she was at partial fault? I can't say much considering I haven't spoken to him personally, do you find it weird that the insurance would be so quick to settle if my sister was the ultimate cause of the collision?

 

[justalayman]

As far as I know, the insurance is willing to pay out the issue is that they want to pay my dad. Also, yes I do have a copy of the police report and I am unsure about the "associated factor." It was acknowledged that my sisters headlights were not working and it was 5pm when the accident occurred, therefore my sister was simply not seen by the SUV before they decided to make a left hand turn.

My sister was going straight at an uncontrolled intersection and the SUV was pulling into a mobile home park, no stop signs.

The case is closed and suicide wasn't even a factor, it was never mentioned. However, I do understand why many of you believe its a valid point and could possibly cause doubt.

im still perplexed as to why the insurance company wants to pay your father. I can think of no situstion where they would pay a person that in some situations would be the next inline heir to her estate. As far as I know, even if he is determined to be the next heir in line, the payment would still not go to him. It would be paid to her estate.

 

[CdwJava]

I see, yet I remain confused on why the insurance would just cash out? I know my sister was going stupid fast (as I mentioned before she was always pretty reckless when riding) but the investigator told my mom that she was at partial fault? I can't say much considering I haven't spoken to him personally, do you find it weird that the insurance would be so quick to settle if my sister was the ultimate cause of the collision?

It is likely less expensive for the insurance company to cash out and have the estate or potential claimants waive any further claims then it might be to litigate. It would cost the insurance company more than the $50,000 to go to court even if they were to prevail.

The investigator's statement to your mom may well have been prior to the official finding, or a half truth ... personally, I try to avoid telling any of the parties - or their survivors - my conclusions until they are on paper.

 

[boliva99]

im still perplexed as to why the insurance company wants to pay your father. I can think of no situstion where they would pay a person that in some situations would be the next inline heir to her estate. As far as I know, even if he is determined to be the next heir in line, the payment would still not go to him. It would be paid to her estate.

I dont understand it either, do you have any recommendations on what kinda of lawyer I should get?

 

[justalayman]

I dont understand it either, do you have any recommendations on what kinda of lawyer I should get?

General practice or given this could swing into probate of your sisters estate, one that practices in probate matters