|
Drunk Driving (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Holy ... sorry to write so much but it's not really as simple a question as it appears on the surface. |
Craig's detailed responses FTMFW. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
Craig's detailed responses FTMFW. |
Thanks! |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
A really really long and concise answer to my question. |
Thanks for all the info Hazard. There were no injuries as it was just a light fender-bender. How does the insurance-reporting work? They didn't exchange insurance info, she got his phone number and license plate and drove off. |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Not really... a stationary object is pretty easy to avoid failing to do so means he wasn't paying close enough attention or did not have control of his vehicle. The same would be true in nearly every North American jurisdiction under common law. |
The way he told the story when I asked for more details is that he saw the car with plenty of time to stop, but it appeared to him that the car was still moving and he assumed it was just another slow driver with their 4-ways on. He started to slow down, but didn't start attempting a full-stop in time. There was also a van in his right blind spot blocking him from moving to the right to avoid her car, so he eventually slid into her doing about 15. So, had he hit his breaks in a attempt to stop right away, the accident would have been avoided.
I'm convinced that they DEFINITELY need a light on the back of the car notifying others that the car is in PARK. It makes no sense to me that if you hit your breaks, 3 bright red lights warn cars behind you that you're stopping/stopped, but if you're in Park, there's nothing to notify vehicles behind you that you're not in motion. In a snow-storm, with people DRIVING with their 4-ways on, emergency lights just aren't enough warning. |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
They didn't exchange insurance info |
That was a mistake - if she didn't have insurance info, he would be in a much better situation, since she couldn't threaten to go through insurance. If you have insurance, and you get into an accident, there's no reason not to take the other person's insurance info, regardless of fault. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Holy ... sorry to write so much but it's not really as simple a question as it appears on the surface. |
I know you like to educate people on insurance but damn that was a long and accurate answer.....I would give detailed answers like that but thats just too much billable time I would be loosing. You could have simply said that he is 100% at fault for the physical damage claim but may not be 100% liable for any injury claim.
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
Thanks for all the info Hazard. There were no injuries as it was just a light fender-bender. How does the insurance-reporting work? They didn't exchange insurance info, she got his phone number and license plate and drove off. |
For your friend it may be a good thing that she didn't exchange insurance information but if she does go through insurance the company can just run an insurance search on the plates.
FYI....if ever in an accident and you may not be at fault get the insurance information....it only makes it more difficult for the insurance company to confirm information and will make the whole claim process take longer....and unfortunately if the insurance company can't confirm insurance information then the claim may go against your collision coverage and would be considered an at fault claim which means your rates are going to go up....and nobody wants that. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
How does the insurance-reporting work? They didn't exchange insurance info, she got his phone number and license plate and drove off. |
Reporting a claim is as easy as picking up the phone and calling your insurance company... the very friendly, professional, and exceedingly brilliant insurance adjuster on the other end will walk you through the rest. Okay, I may be a little biased.
If your friend has sufficient damage to his vehicle to justify a claim then he should call his insurer. They will either ask him to get a couple of estimates or they will send an appraiser out to see his vehicle. They may want to meet with him for a statement; however, if it's just a minor loss they'll likely just interview him by phone. His damages will be paid less his deductible. If he has loss of use coverage he will get a rental paid for while his vehicle is being repaired.
As far as the other party goes; if she chooses to report this to her insurance company the same process will take place; however, she will not have to pay a deductible and her rental will be covered regardless of what coverage she has. Her insurance company will, as chemy stated, get in touch with him for insurance information or they will simply run an insurance search based on the plates (this is partially why you have to tell the MTO your insurance company and policy number when renewing your sticker every year). Once they know who your friend's insurance company is they will contact that insurer to confirm that the policy is valid and that they agree your friend is liable for the accident. If your friend has not reported the claim by this time his insurer will likely open a claim for him and call him to confirm the details of the collision.
From a premium standpoint... if your friend's insurer is notified of the collision then there is a good chance he will see a rate increase next year. I could not venture to guess how much, premiums are set by underwriters... I'm not involved in that aspect at all. Because he was involved in an at fault collision he will be considered a greater risk to insure (essentially, the fact that he had this at-fault collision is evidence that he occasionally drives with undue attention or caution). The value of the claim makes very little difference to the premium increase. I would suggest that if the other party makes a claim and his insurer is notified then he may also want to claim his damages since the effect to his rates will be about the same regardless. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Not really... a stationary object is pretty easy to avoid failing to do so means he wasn't paying close enough attention or did not have control of his vehicle. The same would be true in nearly every North American jurisdiction under common law. |
Normally I would fully agree but in this case there were some other factors at play:
1. The dumb bitch stopped in the middle of the road and not on the shoulder to chat on a cell phone
2. It was during a snow storm where visibility is reduced
3. She put her car in park so she had no break lights
4. Normally her hazard lights should have been a red flag but lots of morons drive around with their hazard lights on in the snow
To me she is at least 50% responsible for that accident. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| double post, I dunno why it won't let me delete it |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Normally I would fully agree but in this case there were some other factors at play:
1. The dumb bitch stopped in the middle of the road and not on the shoulder to chat on a cell phone
2. It was during a snow storm where visibility is reduced
3. She put her car in park so she had no break lights
4. Normally her hazard lights should have been a red flag but lots of morons drive around with their hazard lights on in the snow
To me she is at least 50% responsible for that accident. |
Negative Ghost Rider... the key here is did the driver of the striking vehicle take proper action to avoid the accident as would a reasonable person... the answer is no. A reasonable person would have seen the stopped vehicle, identified it as stopped and taken action to either move around it or stop behind it. The circumstances of why she stopped make very little difference, he had opportunity to avoid and failed to do so, he is the proximate cause, he is at fault. Your argument is about the same as arguing that the city is liable for you hitting a pot hole because the pot hole shouldn't have been there. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Negative Ghost Rider... the key here is did the driver of the striking vehicle take proper action to avoid the accident as would a reasonable person... the answer is no. A reasonable person would have seen the stopped vehicle, identified it as stopped and taken action to either move around it or stop behind it. The circumstances of why she stopped make very little difference, he had opportunity to avoid and failed to do so, he is the proximate cause, he is at fault. Your argument is about the same as arguing that the city is liable for you hitting a pot hole because the pot hole shouldn't have been there. |
Ok, I'll give you that, but she should still be flogged for being stupid |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Ok, I'll give you that, but she should still be flogged for being stupid |
stupidity is what keeps people like Moral and I employed. |
|
|
|
|
