QuestionQUESTION: About 3 weeks ago, my husband was involved in an accident in Orlando. The short story is, he was stopped at a light heading north waiting to make a left-hand turn when a transport vehicle hauling golf carts cut a turn into the southbound lane too sharp, hitting the front driver's side of my husband's car and dragging him into the car behind him. When the police took the report, they obviously noted that my husband and the car behind him were in no way at fault, and that the transport vehicle was responsible. We filed a claim with their insurance company, an adjuster came out, gave us an estimate and assured us we would receive a check for the damages within a few days. Today after having not received a check, or phone call for about a week and half, we were told that the driver of the transport vehicle claimed that a white car had cut him off during the turn, therefore causing him to take evasive action to avoid that car and subsequently hitting my husband. Of course no other parties involved saw this mysterious white car. Now the insurance company is claiming that because their insured was trying to avoid hitting the white car at the time of the accident, they don't feel he is entirely responsible for the damage to our car, and therefore will only pay us 60% of the adjuster's estimate. I feel this is completely unjust, and would like to know if this is legal? Isn't it their responsibility to pay for the damage their client caused, and if they feel another party is partly to blame, to go after them after the fact and recoup their money??? How did WE become responsible for 40% of the damage caused by their client through no fault of our own?? Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
ANSWER: Hi Casie,
If someone else cuts you off and you run into another car is is not your fault, it is the fault of the car that cut you off. That having been said, you need to read the police report very carefully. Does the police report indicate that the truck driver claim that another car cut him off. If not, then they can not use that as a defense. Some insurance companies will instruct there people to come up with these stories in order to reduce there liability. But is the truck driver did not tell the police officer that then it likely never happened.
If if it does say that in the police report, then they would be only partially responsible for the damage. The balance of the liability rests with the fantom vehicle but they are not available to collect from so if falls on you to pay the balance. It may not seem fair, but, that is the way it is.
If you see the police report does not indicate the fantom vehicle and you are still not able to convince then to accept full liability then you shoudl put the claim throught your own insurance company and let them fight it out with the trucking company.
I hope this helps
Richard Hixenbaugh
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Thank you for the response, we appreciate it. We of course hate the answer, but we figured that is what it would be. :o) One last thing...if the responsible party's insurance is only paying 60%, can the people that my husband got dragged into come after us for the other 40% if it was in no way my husband's fault???
Thanx again!!
AnswerHi Casie,
No. Your husband has no liability in this case whatsoever. The liability is apportioned as 60% to the truck that hit your husband and 40% to the fantom vehicle. So the other car will be in the same situation as you.
There is another possibility you could try. Even if the police report says that the driver told the police officer that there was this fantom vehicle, are there any independent witness statements to back that up. It is possible that you could argue for them to accept 100% liability if there is no independent coroboration of the truck drivers story. If there is though the original liability apportionment will stand.
I hope this helps
Richard Hixenbaugh
