QuestionI was rear ended from behind and my car went forward and hit the car in front of me. I filed a police report the next day and also contacted my insurance company. The guy from behind is claiming that I struck first and he struck after me. But this is not true because when I file the police report, the police officer tried to call the other two drivers. The person in front of me said over the phone he only felt one impact. This is proof that I did not hit him first. Should I call up the guy in front of me and ask him to be my witness? Is his statement the deciding factor? Because he doesn't seem to know who struck first and doesn't seem to care.
I talked to my own adjuster and she said that they will cover the front car's damages regardless of who struck first, because I reported to them that I was not at a complete stop before I got rear-ended. Now, I only said that because I didn't think "complete stop" was that important. I was literally 1 second before coming to a full stop and more than one car length away. My adjuster is blaming me for two points, saying that "by law", I'm supposed to come to a full stop and also one and a half distance away from the front car in order to have absolutely no fault in this. But this sounds very ridiculous, because the impact from the car behind could easily push me forward no matter what. I don't understand why my adjuster had to say they are paying for the damages regardless of who hits first.
I have heard of many multiple rear end collisions in which the very last car pays for everybody. And I know one of the sandwiched victims personally and he said his car was not at a full stop when the domino effect happened and he did not have to pay for anything. I'm just wondering if my adjuster is playing any tricks or is there really a “law” out there saying that I should be at fault if I was not completely stopped. In that case, can I change my statement, because I was 1 second away from being stopped and also driving 0km/hr. I just didn't use the expression "complete stop". I really need advice on this, because if my adjuster acts like this, my premiums might increase due to the payment of damages in which I was not at fault. Also, if my adjuster is being like this, the at-fault driver's adjuster might act like this too. I haven't actually discussed with him who's at fault and such yet, but I think it might happen soon.
Also, I'm in Alberta, Canada. I know it might different from the states, but if you're stuck because of that, could you still answer as if it happened in the states so maybe I could get some insights. Thanks.
To add to my previous points, I don't have collision coverage, which means my insurance pays for the car in front but not for my car. So if they somehow twisted the facts and said that because I didn't come to full stop, I have liability, I'd have no coverage for the front end of my car, which was the worst damage out of the 3 cars. In the case of being partially at fault, I would have to pay with my own money to repair the front of my car, and my premiums might go up because my adjuster “chooses” to pay for damages. Should I hire an accident lawyer at that time? Or should I be hiring a lawyer immediately? And would the lawyer fees be too much that it’s not worth it? I would appreciate it very much if you could answer all the questions above to the best of your ability. Thanks for providing this service.
AnswerHi Angela,
I'm sure that there are many minor and major differences between
Canadian Insurance and U.S. insurance. Even here there are minor differences between states and an area of major differences since about 11-12 states have a form of no-fault insurance and the balance
of the states function under tort liability. I believe that Canada
functions under a type of tort.
Go to your web browser, type in the following and then hit go.
"Canadian Insurance Law"
This will bring up many sites, scroll through and read most. This
will enable you to read and learn the insurance laws of Alberta which will be a help in settling this claim. You will also learn whom to contact in your Province government who can assist you in dealing with the company and filing a complaint if necessary.
I can only tell you that based on your version of the accident and and how it occurred, under the tort Insurance laws in effective in California that the last car in line (in this situation) would be considered 100% at fault.
Since your question appears to indicate that your adjustor paid both the first and <plans> to pay the 3rd car, you immediately need to get back in touch with her and work toward getting to review the claim
and make a change in her decision. This will be extremely hard to do if she has already paid out monies to other parties because will then have to inform her superiors of the error and the fact that the money is probably non-returnable. She probably will become more interested in protecting her job than to risk it by pursuing this
one claim.
If she isn't in being of help in reversing the claim, you will have learned enough by reading at the web sites to know what to do next.
I hope that you find this information useful. Your feedback by rating my response to this question will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bennie
San Francisco Bay Area
