Note: Though I am referring to a real-life incident, I am not asking a question specifically about this incident, I’m just wondering about its general implications.
I was in a collision the other day. I was turning left on a turn arrow. As I was completing the turn, the other driver collided with the passenger side of my car, behind the back passenger door.
According to me, I was making a legal turn, and could not see the other vehicle until it was too late due to the other two oncoming lanes of stopped cars in his street obstructing my view of his lane. Though I did not see his light, one naturally concludes, from what I did see, that he ran a red light.
Meanwhile, according to him, his light was green.
Assuming the lights were working correctly, we can’t both be right.
But in every way I can think of, the actual evidence available (the configuration of the intersection, the dents on our cars, etc) is equally compatible with both of our accounts. The same dent would occur whether he was running a red light or not. The same dent would occur whether there were stopped lanes obstructing my view or not.
So what I’m wondering is, how do insurance companies come to any principled kind of decision in a case like this?
Any chance you both have the same insurance company? I know State Farm will handle this kind of situation internally if that is the case, and I think they waive the deductables, too (or used to, as this happened to me 30 years ago).
Otherwise, I imagine they determine the truth the best way they can and try to avoid courts. Any settlement is better than a suit, even if guilt cannot be assigned. Sometimes it is assigned fractionally (i.e., one party is 30% at fault).
I once had a similar accident, where the person who ran into me said I ran a red light. However, I was approached by 3 bystanders who volunteered to testify that the light was green, and I had a juvenile passenger who also could say that. Those eyewitnesses made all the difference.
There will often be independent evidence like camera footage from security cameras, dashcams of other drivers (you did take their details as witnesses, didn’t you?), skid marks etc which they can check.
With regard to traffic lights - at least in the UK - it doesn’t matter if your light was green or his was green or both were. A driver may only may only proceed if it is safe to do so.
Physical evidence first, disinterested witnesses second, credibility and plausibility of interested witnesses third, and sheer bloody-mindedness of advocates fourth.
Pretty much this. Although when I was an adjuster the only time I listened to a biased party was if they were throwing their friend under the bus.
But yeah, physical damage, independent witnesses, common sense, etc. If there still wasn’t anything to give an idea then you side with your insured. They’re the ones that pay the bills. If you can do comparative negligence you come to an agreement with the other company.
A cop’s report will bear on a decision if the cop witnessed it or can and does gain access to other evidence.
What the insurance company does depends on the situation, I suppose, and how much money is at stake. If the client says light was green and other party did X and that party calls to make a claim, insurance company will usually say “sorry, our client advises X.” Other party can decide to sue you or make a claim on his/her own insurance and see what happens.
I disagree. The police aren’t there to help you with your personal liability claims. Now if they other guy had been drinking or there had been a injury, sure.
Here in AZ, the person making the turn is always in the wrong for failing to yield, regardless of what the other driver was doing. Much the same as someone who rear ends another is also always wrong. We are a no fault state, but you’d be cited for it, and a citation related to an accident is often an automatic fault trigger for the insurance.
Do you not have protected left turns in AZ? because it sounds like the OP had a protected left. How can you be cited for failing to yield when you have the explicit right of way?
I’m not a lawyer, but if this were in Michigan it wouldn’t matter if you had the protected arrow or now. The vehicle code indicates that cars going straight must yield to cars turning left.
So you can’t turn left if the other driver was already in the intersection. I’m assuming you didn’t do something so foolish, though.
And…
And so this might apply to you. If you were in Michigan. You might want to consult the vehicle code in your jurisdiction.
In Illinois reporting car accidents is the law, even. I’ve been involved in auto accidents twice as an adult in Chicago. Neither involved injuries. In one case, cops arrived promptly and took a report. In the other, the cars involved were blocking Lake Shore Drive at rush hour and both cars were driveable, so each party went to the police station after the fact and made a report.
I think there’s a difference between filing a police report and calling the police to the scene. In one case the cop can gather/examine any physical evidence, interview witnesses who wouldn’t give you the time of day, and take pictures that he can attest to the time, place and circumstances.
If you go to the police station and fill out a form, the major advantage to the insurance company is that you would be committing a crime if you aren’t truthful. People are generally more reluctant to lie to the police, especially in writing, than to insurance companies.
The last little fender bender I had was basically a he-said-she-said parking lot situation. What happened there was the other person’s insurance company denied my liability claim and my insurance denied theirs and at least the guy from my insurance company said in those situations both parties just make a claim through their collision policy for their own own damage. I was pretty annoyed by that because the big honkin’ dent in the side of my truck I think made a good case for me being the backed-into party not the backing party, but my company wasn’t interested in pursuing it.
Also seemed pretty convenient for them since basically that meant we both had to pay our deductible so by handling the crash that way the two companies collectively ended up paying pretty much nothing, whereas if they’d bothered determining fault at least one of the companies would have had to pay a no-deductible liability claim. Jerks.
Right. *11-406. Duty to report accident.
(a) The driver of a vehicle that is in any manner involved in an accident within this State, resulting in injury to or death of any person, or in which damage to the property of any one person, including himself, in excess of $1,500 (or $500 if any of the vehicles involved in the accident is subject to Section 7-601 but is not covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7-601) is sustained, shall, as soon as possible but not later than 10 days after the accident, forward a written report of the accident to the Administrator. *
In CA you hafta do this too, but your Insurance co usually does it.
But there’s a huge difference from mailing in a form some days later vs calling 911 as you want to divert the police from preventing crime to help you win your settlement.
Of course if he’s drunk or injuries are involved, it’s different.
There’s certainly no shortage of crime in Chicago, but it’s still quite common to see police at the scene of a fender bender. And it doesn’t take much damage these days for repairs to cost $1,500. One of the accidents I mentioned above involved me being hit head-on by an unlicensed driver. I had what looked like relatively minor damage to the hood and bumper, and repairs were about $2500. Because she was driving without a license, she was taken away in handcuffs.
In Britain fighting crime is as likely to involve hunting down digital pirates — acting as enforcers for Hollywood — as hunting down physical burglars, so as with the majority of work, it’s not important enough to justify them not involving themselves in accidents.
Besides which, we have separate traffic cops to regulate traffic and ensure safety. Kinda their job to get involved, whether asked or not.