Auto Insurance Claims: appraisal being refused, passenger tire, insurance carrier

Question
Good morning.  My husband was recently in a car accident, in which another driver, who I'll refer to as Ms. B.,   hit the rear passenger tire of my husband's car when she pulled out of a parking lot.  She had a stop sign and was making a left turn onto a main road.  My husband was approaching a stop light to make a left turn when he was hit.  His rear wheel is bent and cannot be used until it is assessed and repaired.  Ms. B.'s insurance company is refusing to look at my husband's car b/c they say he is responsible for the accident.  The only reason they can offer for refusing any liability is that they claim the road my husband was traveling in was a single lane road and a car had already stopped to let Ms. B. out of the parking lot and that my husband was "passing" the other stopped car when she hit him.  Technically, the road my husband was on is a single lane road until just after you pass the parking lot driveway that Ms. B exited.  However, in practice, traffic in this intersection splits into two lanes of traffic before this driveway.  If you want to make a left turn at that intersection, you follow the flow of traffic to the left lane...and that means doing so before it is a two lane road.  However, the road, although I assume technically a single lane road at that point, is wide enough for two cars side by side at that point without either car being over the dividing line.  Our insurance carrier is "shocked" that the other company is not accepting at least 51% of the fault (as she was making a left turn out of parking lot, with a stop sign) and that they are refusing to investigate the claim whatsoever.  It should also be noted that in order for Ms. B. to make impact on the rear wheel, my husband was already well past her at the time of impact.  We have provided photos of the scene to clarify our argument and have not received any response.  It seems at this time we have to take this woman to small claims, which is a shame.  Is there any feedback you can offer that can help us understand the other insurance company's argument?  Is it common for a company to just outright refuse to investigate a claim and not accept 51% of fault when the driver was making a left turn onto a roadway from a stop sign?  I've sat at this intersection since the accident occurred and watched the flow of traffic and what my husband was doing is what goes on there all day...and what that woman did just seems crazy to me...I'd never dream of pulling out of that parking lot without expecting a second car to come around the first lane.  It's just what any reasonable, experienced defensive driver would do.  We would like to try to understand the other side's argument better, but they will not say anythign more and we do not want to be hit with a surprise when we get to court.  Are we just totally missing somethign here?  WE would not sue someone if we are clearly at fault, but we sincerely do not feel my husband is at fault in this case whatsoever, but certainly not more than 50% at fault. Thank you very much.

Answer
From what you have described, it appears your husband was passing a stopped vehicle when it was unsafe to do so.  There is no "technical" or "in practice" in the law.  It is either a one lane road or it is not.  Even if other cars regularly do this, it is still illegal.

Here's a prime example:  it is illegal in my state to pass a stopped left turning vehicle on the right shoulder.  I always stop behind the stopped car and wait patiently because that is the law.  But I frequently see several cars pass both of us on the right shoulder.  They are all breaking the law.

The other driver was negligent for failure to yield rigt of way.  But so was your husband for unsafe passing.  He should have stopped behind the car in front of him.  He was impatient.

Now the law in your state will be important.  If your state has contributory negligence law, this means that if he was even 1% negligent, they deny the entire claim.  If it is a comparative negligence state, then they "compare" the negligence of each driver and may or may not pay a %  of your claim. There are many different variations of comparative negligence and withou knowing the law in your state, I can't say what is fair.  I would probably place liability at close to 50% each.

They have investigated the claim.  They determined liability.  They do not need to inspect your vehicle if they do not intend to pay your claim.  

If you think you can win, your next option is to sue the other driver in small claims court.  The other driver's insurer will assign a lawyer to defend her.  You do not need a lawyer in small claims court.  They may decide to pay some or all of your claim in order to avoid legal defense fees, though, so it may be a good option.  But keep in mind they also might counter-sue you for the damage to the other car, so there is that risk.