I really don’t understand why you’re getting so het up over the fact that a pedestrian wasn’t walking in the pedestrian walkway behind your car. I live in a college town and pedestrians walk wherever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want. Regardless of what the legal liability is here, you are morally liable for failing to check that the sidewalk was clear before proceeding. That’s why you felt so bad after the accident happened.
How did you miss that some think “the accident” might not have actually happened at all?
**Tracijo **doesn’t know that the ped wasn’t hurt. As stated upthread, anyone in that situation could have twisted their knee trying to get away.
Story time! When I was in college, I was walking on the sidewalk when an idling sports car suddenly blasted backwards out of his driveway and came within 3 inches of backing into me. I was only 19 and in good shape, so I was able to run out of the way before ending up under his rear tire. I instinctively smacked the top of his trunk with my hand as he passed, to alert him to my presence (it wasn’t done maliciously, I was more scared than angry). I certainly wouldn’t presume any/everyone could have gotten out of the way as quick as a fit teenager, without injury.
Now, in my case, I didn’t try to file against him for anything, since I wasn’t hurt. But Tracijo, who was *driving the vehicle at the time, *doesn’t even know for certain whether the ped was hurt. If she’s not qualified to make that determination, you (and any forum member) sure as hell aren’t. The insurance company doesn’t know either; they’re taking a calculated risk by denying the claim, based on the claimant’s history. But just because a woman is “unsympathetic” due to her history of drug abuse, that doesn’t mean she can’t possibly twist her ankle trying to get out of the path of a moving vehicle any more than a prostitute can’t possibly be raped.
It makes a huge difference where the pedestrian was when the incident occurred. Not only was the pedestrian likely not legally allowed to be there, she was foolish for walking against traffic into the path of a car that would be turning. If this wasn’t preplanned, she was more careless than the driver since she assumed more risk.
Feeling bad for what happened isn’t an indication of guilt. If someone happens to get into a car accident while driving to a restaurant I recommended, I would feel terrible although I would not be at fault.
I felt horrible, and still do, that my failure to check again before pulling out COULD have caused an accident. I acknowledge that, and it is why I paid the ticket without fighting it. It was not an acknowledgement of guilt that I hit her, it was an acknowledgment that I failed to check again, left and right, before attempting my turn. I remain skeptical that my vehicle came into any contact with her at all, other than her hand smacking the hood of my car. And I do believe that I almost hit her. Based on what I have found out about her claim, I think it very unlikely she was scamming by staging an event. I believe that this was probably more of a desperate attempt to get narcotics (“I was hit by a CAR! I am SUING the driver! I’m not asking for pain meds this time for my lower back/menstrual cramps/whatever undiagnosable ailment I’ve sought drugs for a gazillionty times! I was hit by a car and MY LEG HURTS!”) She didn’t get narcotics for that, either. She was given ibuprofen for her soft tissue complaints. She didn’t have so much as a bruise or scratch. Anyone who remains skeptical at this point … I’m a bit aghast.
And yes, pedestrians walk where the fuck and when the fuck they want here, too. The intersection near my workplace is notorious for pedestrian accidents. Several of my coworkers have been struck. How about the pedestrians obey the fucking LAWS too? Or perhaps you didn’t realize that it is illegal for pedestrians to walk when and where the fuck they want to? It is incomprehensibly stupid to take no care at all when a 2000 pound vehicle is involved, and this says nothing of who is at fault.
She still has the responsibility to make sure that both ways are clear before turning if it’s a heavy pedestrian area. Hell, what if it was a cyclist instead of a pedestrian?
As someone who is both a driver and a pedestrian on a daily basis, I feel confident in saying it doesn’t matter whether she might be legally at fault. You still bear the greater amount of responsibility for avoiding traffic accidents. I mean, it’d be one thing if she ran out in front of your vehicle outside of a crossing-zone while you were traveling at speed on the roadway. But in this scenario, she walked in front of your vehicle while you were idling your way out of a parking garage. I pull out of parking garages all the time and I always triple-check for pedestrians before I hit the gas, because it’s the right thing to do. When you’re operating the 2000-pound death machine around pedestrians and cyclists and skateboarders, it’s your obligation to refrain from hitting objects that are directly in front of you.
That’s all I have to say on the subject.
I feel equally confident with suggesting that since I checked both ways before crossing over the pedestrian walk, and because I was not “idling out of the parking garage” but in fact nosed out into the street, head turned to watch traffic pass so I could make a turn, that she was hideously stupid to walk into the street while, a glance at my 2000 death trap would show my head turned in the opposite direction. And she was attempting to walk. In. The. Street.
You lost me when you implied that pedestrians should be free to walk when they want, where they want. The entitlement attitude implied behind that, with the added hypocrisy of presuming that vehicle drivers are the only ones who must follow the law .. along with the insertion of the word “moral” as belonging anywhere in a post like that… Your opinion holds no credibility with me.
Good day!
To avoid the very incident that occurred with the pedestrian, cyclists are legally supposed to ride with the flow of traffic. If the cyclist was traveling against the flow of traffic, the cyclist would be at fault.
Although the consequences are not the same, the scenarios are similar. In both cases, the pedestrian was jaywalking and exhibited poor judgement by walking in front of the car’s expected path.
Bodily Injury and liability adjuster checking in. I work for a Very Large Auto Insurance Company that is top 3 in the US in terms of market share.
OP what state are you in?
I would settle this claim.
When you buy insurance, in exchange for your premium your insurance company transfers your risk to them.
Most people are risk-averse. We try to minimize our risk (exposure) at all times. Insurance companies are the same. To bring this point home, your company sees three possible outcomes (four, if they’re on the ball, but we’ll leave bad faith out of it) as a result of pedestrian lady filing a claim. I will rate them from least risk averse to most.
- offer policy limits outright to make her go away. Ain’t never gonna happen.
- deny - either on liability (which I would disagree on, you are at best 75% negligent and I can see plenty of reasonable arguments to go up to 100% negligent) or on causality, both of which will likely fail at trial and could open both you and them up to large exposure
- evaluate and offer a settlement.
The most efficient, least risky and most beneficial to YOU is for them to settle. You may hate it but as they “own” the risk here, they are the only party to decide their course of action. Your policy spells it out under Liability Coverages in plain English: We have the right to settle or defend any claim.
I made an offer on a claim yesterday where the claimant’s attorney was demanding $500,000 in their initial demand - on a file where claimant sustained approximately $450 in vehicle damages and $1100 in medical bills (primary care doc, and a handful of ortho visits). After evaluating the demand, I got the attorney on the phone. We spent a good minute laughing together about the $500k demand - “I felt stupid even typing it up, but Ms. Doe demanded I ask for policy limits”. I offered the medical bills and $500 for pain and suffering, to start, and the attorney made a realistic - if still outside my evaluated range - counter. All this despite the fact I believe 10000% the claimant was not injured and saw this 2mph rear end accident as a quick payday.
The point is, rarely will an insurance company flat-out deny a claim when in a pure or modified comparative negligence jurisdiction their insured is negligent. It’s too dangerous to them - juries are always dangerously unpredictable, and too dangerous to you (you do NOT want an excess verdict judgement when the claim could have settled two years ago).
Regarding liability: you have a positive duty in every jurisdiction in the US (and likely the world) to maintain a proper lookout at all times. You struck an object in front of you. Whether they were “supposed” to be there or not is immaterial. Not to say we can just jump willy nilly in front of cars - this is what comparative negligence is for - but you as the operator of a multiple-ton vehicle have a greater duty of care than pedestrian woman has. Any attorney worth his salt will push this to the hilt at trial, while your insurance company’s lawyers will try for some small portion of shared negligence on her for walking on the roadway. I say good luck to them.
This reminds me of a case where one of our insureds went apeshit when we told him he was at fault for backing his Fiero into two parked motorcycles, knocking them down and causing significant damage to each. They were in a marked no parking zone across the lot from our guy. They shouldn’t have been there (his argument, therefore why should he be at fault?) but they were, and we failed to maintain a proper lookout when backing (didn’t look at all). He went batshit insane, calling all the way up the chain to our executive office. We paid over $17k combined for these bikes, and our guy’s premium nearly doubled afterwards (New Jersey policy, and guy was 22 years old, so it was already high).
He ended up suing us in small claims for his premium surcharge and increase, small claims since he likely couldn’t find any attorney at all to take his case which pretty much was “my shitty insurance paid claims where I wasn’t at fault and now I am forced to pay eleventy billion a month in premium as a result”. He got spanked in the end, apparently getting a lecture from the judge on NJ traffic code, his duties and failures therein, and the frivolity of the suit.
Thanks for your expert insight, Drew. I know that my insurance company tried a few options before rejecting the claim (or whatever the legal term is for not agreeing to pay the settlement amount being asked for).
If it goes to court, which I doubt, I will take my chances. Since she lied, on the record, about several key factors of the incident, and she lied to my insurance company about when she went to the doctor and what her injury was, and she lied to me and to the parking attendant witness about being pregnant, and above all, she had an “injury” that was treated with ibuprofen, I’m pretty comfortable.
You are missing the point. How do you think this will not go to trial, if your company doesn’t settle? Think the attorney will just roll over and say “oops, you’re right” and drop her or the case? Nope. She’ll just get another one who will instantly put it in suit. I’ve already explained why any insurance co won’t let this get in front of a jury. How so? They settle either pre-litigation or settle pre-trial. Don’t be so confident she gets nothing - you have unrealistic expectations. It’s a big stupid game but don’t forget there isn’t just your company at play here - her attorney also knows the game.
This is out of my hands. I have no say in the matter.
My agent has made it clear to me that he is willing to risk the possibility of a trial based on the lady’s refusal to settle for what he considered a reasonable amount. My agent told me, there is a chance but he will be surprised if the attorney doesn’t drop her. I understand that she may run out and find another attorney. I am aware that this case may go to trial. I got your point. I understand that a jury if my peers may look at all the evidence and think, despite her lack of credibility, maybe my bumper did graze her. And lord almighty, she needed some ASPIRIN for her complaint of leg pain. Ok, perhaps the owner of the vehicle was 75% at fault. But she suffered no verifiable injuries, no lost wages.
I am still comfortable.
Oh, and if she lawyers up again and my insurance agent feels it best to settle pretrial, so be it. Not money out of my pocket. I have been driving for 27 years, this is my first ever incident, I have not so much as a speeding ticket in over 20 years. Somehow, I think I’ll gimp through any slight adjustment to my premium, if one comes.
What happens if claimant makes outrageous claim (like that half mil demand that drewc discussed above); insurance company exercises its unilateral option to let the case go to court rather than settle (as OP says her company plans to do); and then the jury awards in excess of the policy limit? Does the insurance company cover that? Or is the insured stuck holding the bag for the excess amount, because the company chose to go to court?
OP: apologies as from your earlier wording it wasn’t clear that they were attempting to settle with the claimant attorney. I thought they were denying outright which I have a very big problem with, as outlined above.
There is a difference between Stand Our Ground on a ridiculous case where we make an offer to settle at nuisance value, and flat out denial. I am guessing your policy limits are $100k or greater. Your company is considering your potential personal exposure all the time in these claims. With these bullshit injuries your company is taking the chance that even an outrageous verdict won’t be an excess verdict, opening you up personally to exposure over your policy limits. I agree with their course of action in this regard.
If you had a minimal policy - $20,000 let’s say - I’d be up their asses to settle to protect me if I were you. One crazy juror could see an excess verdict that you could be potentially liable for.
What if the verdict is an excess verdict? That’s a damn good question. Will the company make an extracontractual payment? Depends. Why did they so underestimate the jury or the case? Did you make a shitty witness? Is there aggravated liability? Was it just “one of those days”? I don’t handle claims yet where we expect an excess verdict - and there are always those on the books - so I’m not sure beyond water cooler chat what happens in general except they are each handled on their own merits.
Th initial outrage I felt in the beginning of this thread, ironically enough (and thankfully never expressed to my agent, although I expressed my skepticism about hitting her) was that he told me during our first phone call that he would review the medical records and would probably throw a few thousand dollars at her to settle it as a nuisance claim. I have since learned a rather humbling lesson that he was smart to do so, having nothing to do with her and everything to do with what you succintly stated above, coupled with the fact that I paid the “careless driving” citation that the police officer initially told me would not be given – he mailed it to me a few weeks later anyway.
Subsequent conversations with my agent, I am convinced that he is a smart man who will do his best on his company’s behalf and, by extension, for me 
I understand why he rejected the counter offer, and I think, based on what he did say, the attorney was keenly interested in settling but his client refused to do so. He did not actually tell me what he offered; I don’t know if he can (I didn’t think to ask since my mind was on the ‘injury’ aspect).
I have a liability limit that was carefully chosen to be in line with our personal assets. It would be very difficult for me to believe that a jury would review the same records that my agent did, hear the facts we do know, even hear me honestly acknowledge that I cannot be certain because my head WAS turned (but summarize her post-performance, and I do have a friendly witness to that), review her “injury” and her past medical records … and come to a conclusion any different than my agent did. Sure, they may decide to throw a pittance at her based on whqt they deermine my liability to be. Either way, I trust that my agent is doing what he does best. He’ll hear no more belly aching from me.
They are - or had better be - putting your interests far above theirs. They have eleventy billion in assets specifically to pay claims. You have your house, cars, bank account. Every action they take will be with Protecting The Insured overarching their decisions. Every course they take should only be with your interests first, as it is a Very Bad Thing for them to put themselves first. A massive insurance company that everyone has heard of paid millions in punitive damages recently in a bad faith case where their refusal to settle when even the dumbest of rocks could see that the first phone call should have resulted in an immediate tendering of policy limits led to a ginormous excess verdict, and a subsequent bad faith case from their insured after they were told that they were on the hook for the $300,000 excess verdict over the policy limit. It was the bad faith verdict that had them pay the punitive damages award in the millions, and the extracontractual damages on behalf of their insured from the original excess verdict.
Someone said that you would receive a personal summons if you were being sued in the U.S. That is not necessarily the case. I was in a situation where I had to file suit. I promise, it was not like the above story at all. And I waited to file, because I did not want to and tried every other option and always told myself, “get a lawyer, sue…but that’s mean, I’m not like that…” The deal is that when you sue an insured person, party, entity, you are in essence suing their insurer. Their insurer is the one who is going to fight like h%;l to stay out of court, to settle for as little as they can, or to take it to court if they see that that is the best way to minimize payout. That is not to say that it does not harm the insured person. It can, stress, you get called to court, possibly, an increase in insurance rates, being dropped by an insurer, etc…B.S. suits do harm everyone, not just the big companies. I disagree with the person who is trying to say that you are not right or that your story is not right, by disputing the facts.
I had a car that was involved in a minor accident. I was not the driver. Someone was driving my car. The person driving the car told me what happened. Took pictures at the scene. No apparent damage to either car. A small white mark on my black bumper. A small mark on the bumper of other car, no scratches, no dents…Both drivers agreed that they were fine. Other driver said, she did not know why she came to a sudden stop for no reason, on a major road. She said she thought she saw a stop sign…there was no sign. She kind of imagined or hallucinated it. Her passenger got out throwing curse words around, she told him to get back in the car and told him everything was fine. She apologized to the driver of my car, saying her brother was nuts. Everyone left. Later she changed her mind. Invented problems. Claimed the scratches on the very side of the bumper and trunk were from the accident. That was not even where the accident happened. Said she would need to replace booster seat and they she and all passengers were suffering. (there was 1 passenger.) I told my insurance company when they called that this was bull. The accident happened at a very low rate of speed. I sent the pictures. Gave them details. They said that it was just easier for them to settle. Since the settlement was for more than 3,000. it would make my rates go up. Her car was not even worth that much. She never could produce proof of the medical expenses, so that was not included. She was trying to say that she lost work, and that she needed extended massage therapy. I was contacted by my auto insurance company, and all of the decisions were in their hands.
You would certainly receive personal service on filing of the suit. Whether or not you receive a summons depends on the rules of civil procedure in your jurisdiction.