Insurance company using ridiculous argument to find me at fault

[Mr. Onion]

I was travelling along the highway in the right lane of two lanes. A car travelling in the same direction in the left lane lost control and went sideways across into my lane. I was unable to stop in time and hit the car broadside. The insurance company has found me 25% at fault saying that "I should have been able to stop my vehicle". This, in my opinion, is a ridiculous statement when you're talking about 2 lanes. Their argument seems to be based on the idea that I was "following too closely" but if I'm in a different lane I don't see how that is relevant - is that not the purpose of lanes? They also cited a few examples of case law but those accidents involved a rear end collision by someone following in the SAME lane as the person they hit. I told them I think their argument is ridiculous and I refused to pay 25% (approx. $800) of the repairs to my vehicle. Do I have a case if I pursue this to court? do you know of any websites where I could find case law similar to my accident and see how they were settled? thanks.

 

[ALawyer]

Whose insurance company? YOURS or the other drivers?

If is is the other driver's, they owe you no duty and will do whatever they can to reduce their exposure. It is not what the insurance company says that counts -- they are making you an offer. The driver at fault seems 100% liable (unless your possible speeding was a contributory cause - in which case they may have a point) and if you don't like the offer his company is making, take him to court - even small claims court. They know that if you hire a lawyer his or her fee would be 25% or more of the value of the car.

If you go to a lawyer the lawyer would likely try hard to see if there are any possible claims for personal injury -- and if so, the insurance company would have a LOT to lose and you'd be a fool by trying to handle this on your own. In fact only if they fear you getting a lawyer involved will they increase your offer as the lawyer would really try to make this a PI case. So if you telkl them that is not enough, and you've been feeling some aches and pains and may see a lawyer to handle the personal injury and the property damage they may be far more responsive.

 

[Mr. Onion]

yes it is the other drivers insurance company trying to say I'm 25% liable. And I have retained a lawyer for a PI claim becasue I have documented soft tissue damage to my neck and both hands. In fact, at first they found me to be 0% liable. The day after they received a letter from my lawyer informing them that I had retained him in a PI claim, they changed their ruling to the 25%. I fully intend on taking them to court because I refuse to accept any responsibility for the accident and have it on my driving record. I just don't understand how an insurance company can put blame on me by using ridiculous logic and saying "well you should have been able to stop". That makes no sense to me.

 

[Vincent Cosent]

It,s all about money!

and the law (as in offshore tax shelters for the rich) not morality or civic responsibility.