Parking Lot Auto Accidents
lha...@erols.com
backing out of a parking space, I got an education about how auto
insurers in Maryland take advantage of our state's common law. The
other guy's insurance company claims they are not liable because my car
was backing/moving too, so I must be at least partly at fault. Under
the doctrine of contributory negligence, if I am only 1 percent at fault
they don't have to pay. My own insurer paid for the repairs, less the
$500 deductible.
Generally in life, I accept the consequences of my mistakes, but in this
situation, I really don't think I did anything wrong. I had just backed
out of my parking space (between two parked cars) into a completely open
area. I was completely in the roadway, about to pull forward when the
SUV (which had been parked on the opposite side, all by itself) backed
and turned so its rear bumper broadsided my car (driver's side doors).
My insurer was unwilling to contest the matter, so I'm out $500 plus a
lot of inconvenience (2 weeks loss of use of my car, etc).
It seems to me the auto insurance companies collectively must like
contributory negligence, because both drivers are on the hook for their
deductible, even if one of them is blameless.
I would like to hear from other people who have had a similar
experience or have some thoughts on the subject.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dennis Jay
But there are sound legal and social principles involved with the doctrine
of contributory negligence.
It does encourage some personal responsibility, such as wearing selt belts,
etc., and helps to keep insurance rates from going even higher than they are
now.
Your insurance company probably would spend much more than $1,650 to hassle
with the other company and driver to fight this claim.
lha...@erols.com wrote in message <7t256j$nrk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
SunkDeBird
cutting down on litigation. Compare your rates with states that have "no
fault" insurance!
A good company will do a dillegent job in subrogating your loss and trying to
recover the money they paid to fix your car. Any money they collect could be
used to reimburse your deductible.
Kevin Felix
this situation. The main reasons for parking lot accidents being handled in
this manner, albeit incorrectly are:
+ Lack of lane control
+ Lack of traffic control devices
+ Location on private property
+ Police generally unwilling to come to the scene and prepare an accident
report assessing fault
Without objective report by a recognized authority, many insurers find it
difficult to assess blame to one party or another. And being that the
nature of the accident usually results in relatively minor damage without
bodily injury, insurers find it economically unfeasible to litigate or
subrogate the claim. Thus, the "easy" answer is to assess each party with
their own damages and collect from their own insurers.
The only occasions I have found insurers to establish fault entirely on one
party are those in which police have responded and written a complete report
indicating fault.
Kevin Felix
Felix Insurance Agency, Inc.
<lha...@erols.com> wrote in message news:7t256j$nrk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> After having the side of my car caved in ($1650 for repairs) by an SUV
> backing out of a parking space, I got an education about how auto
> insurers in Maryland take advantage of our state's common law. The
> other guy's insurance company claims they are not liable because my car
> was backing/moving too, so I must be at least partly at fault. Under
> the doctrine of contributory negligence, if I am only 1 percent at fault
> they don't have to pay. My own insurer paid for the repairs, less the
> $500 deductible.
>
catni...@my-deja.com
had an accident in a parking lot in Maryland with
the opposite results from what lhamil experienced.
I began backing out of a space in a residential
parking lot. I backed up just enough to view the
traffic lane, when I saw a car coming toward my
car at great speed. I sat in my space, well
within the clearly-designated lines. The other
car hit the back right side of my car, causing
more than $2,500 in damage. My bumper was pushed
completely to the other side of my car, and there
was much damage underneath. The other car had
nothing more than a little paint from my car.
My insurance adjuster refuses to take my case to
arbitration. Before he even looked at pictures of
the cars and the accident scene, he decided he
would just pay for the damages to my car, the
other car, and injuries now claimed by the
passengers of the other car. He told me it
doesn't matter how fast the other car was
traveling; the other driver could have hit my car
at 500 miles per hour, had he wanted to. It
wasn't his responsibility to look out for parked
cars. It doesn't matter that I was sitting at a
full stop inside my parking space. There was no
police report, so I can't understand why
an insurance company would want to undermine its
own insured.
When I mentioned Maryland's contributory
negligence law, he said it doesn't apply in my
case.
I finally called the Motor Vehicle Administration
and was told that my adjuster is wrong and that it
sounds like he doesn't understand how the accident
happened or he's trying to jack up my insurance
rate. I was advised to have the courts settle who
was at fault or decide that it's inconclusive and
let the insurance companies pay for their own
insured. Unfortunately, my adjuster is determined
put the blame on me and reward the other driver
for reckless driving. Also, I have a clean
driving record (no accidents or tickets in 20
years of driving) and don't want this on my
record.
As soon as possible, I'm going to look for an
insurance company that's will to represent ME and
not the other driver.
In article <rvqk65...@corp.supernews.com>,
Rosesakura
control of the aisle and another vehicle backs into you, then that person is at
fault for the accident. If you both were backing up simutaneously, then it
would be 50/50. I don't think that the adjuster's in your state like
contributory neglicgence, per se, because in reality it would be preferrable
for them to have you go through the at-fault parties insurance so, that they
can close your claim. Maybe you should have been more persistent in presenting
your side of the story or you should take the other party to small claims
court. How did the other person's insurance respond to the liability decision?
Did you give them a statement?
RbtGilliam
>In my state, KY, if you are in a collision in a parking lot and you have
>control of the aisle and another vehicle backs into you, then that person is
>at
>fault for the accident. If you both were backing up simutaneously, then it
>would be 50/50.
I'm sure it's not quite that clear cut. Every accident has a separate and
independent liability decision. Although the liability call in the two
examples you quote may appear correct on the surface, it is rarely the case
that there is not some type of mitigating circumstance to help muddy the
waters. The facts of the original post stated that the vehicle HAD been backing
but stopped before being struck by a speeding vehicle that would clearly have
been in control of the aisle. So who is at fault? The backing vehicle was not
in control of the aisle, but had stopped moving (although apparently partially
blocking the aisle). The vehicle in control appears not to have been paying
attention AND was speeding. The only absolute is the lack of one.
>I don't think that the adjuster's in your state like
>contributory negligence, per se, because in reality it would be preferable
>for them to have you go through the at-fault parties insurance so, that they
>can close your claim.
I agree to a point. The adjuster in this scenario certainly didn't do the lazy
thing, which would have been to pay for his/her insured's vehicle damage and
deny the other party's PD and BI. Instead the adjuster made a lazy liability
decision (i.e.: my guy was at some point backing and therefore we are at fault)
which will now generate even more work. By the way, I don't think we have an
epidemic out there of lazy (or even over worked adjusters making selfish
liability decisions just to close a claim. Don't get me wrong, there ARE a lot
of lazy and over worked adjusters out there but there are also MANY who truly
try to handle the claim FAIRLY. The unfortunate fact, as we have discussed
many times on this NG, is that we as an industry are doing little to cultivate
more of THIS type of adjuster.
Another statement that has run through this thread is bothering me. Is
Maryland actually a pure contributory negligence state or (as most states) are
they a comparative negligence state (all my handy reference guides are at the
office). If they are a comparative state and the adjuster is accepting fault
he/she had better argue that the claimant bears a substantial portion of the
liability or that will be yet another lazy mistake!
Parking lot accidents are ALWAYS difficult to adjust for the reasons that have
already been quoted (I believe by Kevin). This is complicated by the fact they
are often handled by less experienced adjusters since BI's USUALLY do not
apply. Of all the types of accidents out there, they are one of the easiest on
which to cut investigative corners.
Bob Gilliam
RbtGi...@aol.com
Vanguard Adjusters Group, Inc.
Ken Carter
RbtGilliam <rbtgi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991010155218...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> Another statement that has run through this thread is bothering me. Is
> Maryland actually a pure contributory negligence state or (as most states)
are
> they a comparative negligence state (all my handy reference guides are at
the
> office).
Maryland is one of I believe only three contrib. negl. states left (actually
two states and DC) for MVA related liability.
Ken.
Corey Heim
> As an insurance agent and consultant, I understand your frustration with
> this situation. The main reasons for parking lot accidents being handled in
> this manner, albeit incorrectly are:
> + Lack of lane control
> + Lack of traffic control devices
> + Location on private property
> + Police generally unwilling to come to the scene and prepare an accident
> report assessing fault
>
> Without objective report by a recognized authority, many insurers find it
> difficult to assess blame to one party or another. And being that the
> nature of the accident usually results in relatively minor damage without
> bodily injury, insurers find it economically unfeasible to litigate or
> subrogate the claim. Thus, the "easy" answer is to assess each party with
> their own damages and collect from their own insurers.
Interesting way of putting it. Here's an a real life example of how "my"
company does it. Our insured is going across parking lot (in the "correct
lane" if that's possible) and veh #2 comes barrelling perpendicular to our
insured and they collide. Our insured goes under his collision and pays
his deductible. The claim is later finalized with our insured getting 50%
of his deductible back. What happened? We paid prop damage to the other
driver and they other insurer paid prop damage to us. Declared a 50/50,
so insured gets half his deductible back. All this despite a police
report (in a parking lot accident!) that assessed blame on the other
driver. Uhhh...try good customer service with that one.
Corey
--
Corey Heim--...@ez-net.edu
Free DVD! Fight DIVX!---Make obvious change to address to send email.
Given the choice between accomplishing something, and just lying around, I'd rather just lie around. No contest. --Eric Clapton