Insurance Company Looking for Loopholes (rental, vehicle, lane, replace)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mine and another vehicle were hit by a teenage driver who lost control on an icy road and slid across the turn lane and into oncoming traffic while attempting to avoid another vehicle that had pulled out in front of them and then left the scene. There was no contact between the teenage driver who lost control and the vehicle that pulled out in front of them. There was a police report made, but the police were going to look for the driver that started the chain reaction and did not cite the teenage driver that lost control. I am insured by State Farm and, coincidentally, the teenage driver that lost control is as well. However, I only have liability insurance on my fairly old vehicle and the State Farm entity representing the teenage driver who lost control is denying liability saying they are not at fault. I also have an "uninsured motorist" policy that covers when the party deemed responsible for an accident leaves the scene....I assumed that would apply here. However, initial response from State Farm entity representing me is that this does not apply since the driver who left the scene did not make direct contact with me. So here is the way I see this. One State Farm entity is saying that the teenage driver who lost control and slid into my lane is not liable since they were forced into my lane by a driver who left the scene and that person is liable. At the same time, another State Farm entity is saying that the driver who left the scene is not liable for my damages either since they did not make contact. So aren't they essentially saying that the teenage driver who lost control and slid into oncoming traffic is liable? It seems to me that State Farm is in a Catch22 and trying to get out of this is a blatant double standard on their part. Does anybody have any input on this? Also, how common is it that the driver who lost control and hit me is 100% not liable?
You're surprised that two insurance providing entities are looking for loopholes? Really? They want to recoup the costs of everyone's claims. They may not be able to but for different reasons.
There's finding someone liable in order to recoup the costs of repairing your car, and there's paying to repair your car. Either way, if you have the appropriate coverage, your claim gets paid. If you were driving on an empty road, slid on black ice and hit a guardrail, no one else might be found liable for anything, but your insurance still repairs your car and has to eat that cost. If you have comprehensive coverage. Of course the teen's insurance carrier is going to want to find the car that cut him off is liable...they want to go after someone to recoup their costs. But they can't. You were an innocent bystander and were damaged. For them to put liability onto the teen they'd probably have to make the case that the teen didn't take the appropriate action when cut off...and that's why he hit YOU. If they can't do that because the icy conditions made "appropriate action" impossible, the teen may end up being another victim just as you were. It may not end up mattering if anyone is found liable. But, because you don't have comprehensive coverage on this car, you may have to pay for your repairs OOP.
Last edited by Parnassia; 02-03-2020 at 02:43 PM..
Also, how common is it that the driver who lost control and hit me is 100% not liable?
Not common at all.
A driver who loses control of his vehicle on an icy road was driving too fast for conditions. That's negligence. That he wasn't cited is irrelevant. On an icy road driving the speed limit can be too fast.
I suggest you sue him for your car repair cost. Name the owner of the car as well, if the teen was not the owner. No way to predict the outcome.
A word of advice. If you insure your car for only liability insurance you'd better have money set aside to repair or replace it when something happens that nobody else pays for.
As chance would have it, I am also suing State Farm over an accident. They're on this new system that doesn't involve adjusters. They just have a "team of appraisers" to review the matter. They sent me some sort of a link to an app I'm supposed to download on my phone to take pictures of my car. No word on how loss of use would be worked out.
As chance would have it, I am also suing State Farm over an accident. They're on this new system that doesn't involve adjusters. They just have a "team of appraisers" to review the matter. They sent me some sort of a link to an app I'm supposed to download on my phone to take pictures of my car. No word on how loss of use would be worked out.
Why does all that give you grounds to sue State Farm?
Their insured backed into me, damaging my car. This is a tort giving rise to legal liability on her part. The damage to my car is about $1300 and the loss of income is about $333. In addition, I will need a rental car for the four days that it will take for the car to be fixed. So, I'd be glad to take a check for $1,753 and to consider the matter resolved.
Unfortunately, State Farm doesn't see it that way. Their phone claims agent wants me to watch a 20-minute video on how to use State Farm's app and to take some pictures of my car. Then, they will probably decide that the damage is worth about $800, provide me with a rental car, and give me nothing for loss of income. I know this because I already went to one of their in-network shops and got the spiel.
The problem with all of this is that I know I can have the car fixed right for $1300. I know that my own guy can have the car fixed for about $600 using undocumented laborers. So, I don't see why I should pay extra to have it done shoddily.
Accordingly, I plan to sue the driver/registered owner of the vehicle in small claims and to serve the papers on both her and her insurance agent.
Assuming that someone from State Farm shows up (doubtful) they'll need to pay that person's airfare and time to sit in court. Then, they'll lose and have to pay the me the $1753 anyway.
Is it so unreasonable for me to want to speak to an adjuster about the damage to my vehicle?
Why does all that give you grounds to sue State Farm?
Those are the same types of suits that were attempted over the Third Party Total Loss Valuation systems. As we saw from those, the courts pretty much tossed them. A few lucky soles got some money initially but was mostly eaten up by their attorneys, and it ended when these initial nuisance lawsuits and settlements were worth fighting by the insurance company. Lawsuits based on valuation systems, appraisal systems, adjusters systems, apps, computerized systems, etc., seldom go anywhere unless found to be fraudulent.
I do know of a successful lawsuit over the Total Loss Valuation, but that was less over the system and more over collusion and documented bad faith tactics. It didn't even have anything to do with the at-fault party, just how internally the insurance company and Third Party Valuation company behaved. I pretty much know what got them caught but the settlement is under a heavy confidentiality agreement so I can't get her to say anything anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
