Not sure if this is GQ or IMHO, please move if required.
This is in Alberta, Canada.
My husband was accused of hitting another car in a parking lot about 4 months ago. He was entering a tight parking lot driveway, and the other vehicle was exiting. The other vehicle was over the ‘invisible’ center line and was speeding (20+ kms/hr), and my husband, in the truck, had to re-adjust his steering mid-turn to avoid the other car and went over the curb. He states he did not feel or see an impact to the other vehicle.
Points to consider:
[ul]
[li]It occurred in a parking lot (usually 50/50 as far as I’ve been told).[/li][li]The other driver stopped on the street, walked around his car, and left. He returned about 10 minutes later and found my husband, said he hit him, and they exchanged information. At that time my husband did see a long scrape along the rear quarter panel of the car.[/li][li]The other driver was an undercover officer in an undercover vehicle :eek:.[/li][/ul]
Today he received a call from our insurance company stating he was 100% at fault. He asked (the adjustor - first level) for details and she wouldn’t provide them (not totally clear on this, he might have lost his temper). I’ve called and left (nice, reasonable) messages twice now and have not received a call back.
Any advice or insight? Is their decision final (I should hope not, there should be an appeal process!)? Obviously I’ll talk to her first and try to get some information on how they came to the decision (especially the 100% at fault part) and ask to see documentation. Am I allowed to see the oppossing documentation/statements as well? Next step is taking it a level up.
Assuming Canada is reasonably similar to US, you’re not entitled to transcripts or gists of conversations your insurer has had with the other driver. That’s “work product”, as is written evidence of the thought process which yielded the decision, and is privileged information.
However, I think you’re looking at this in the wrong way.
Your insurance company is not in the business of throwing you under the bus. Their job is to pay what you’d be legally compelled to pay should the case go to trial. Based on the information they’ve received, they are reasonably sure that a jury would find that a collision happened, that your husband was substantially at fault for the collision and that you would be required to pay for the resulting damage. That’s pretty much it.
Paint/rubber trading is a good way to find out who was moving (or who was going faster) between two cars. I got out of a 50/50 fault because of this, and I was the one who had to point it out to the adjuster to compare my car against their car to determine who was moving and who was stopped. (We were both side by side at a stop sign where the other driver who was going to turn left decided to turn right…right into me).
Also, which car had the long scrape on the back panel? That was unclear.