QuestionQUESTION: My wife was in a 3-car accident. She was the middle car. Right after the accident, all drivers got out, and the driver of the car behind my wife was clearly accepting his responsibility for the accident.
The accident was during rush hour, with all cars traveling very slowly (maybe 5mph). The police was called, but the trooper did not show up for a long time. Instead, a Highway Assistance van showed up, listened to everyone's story, called the trooper on the radios, and the trooper said that because everyone is agreeing that the 3rd driver was at fault, everyone who can go can go. The other two cars left, but my wife's car was not drivable (it was later declared a total loss by our insurance -- we filed under our Collision policy). When the trooper finally arrived, my wife asked him for a police report, but he refused to make one, since everyone was agreeing on the facts of what happened.
It gets more interesting later. The next thing (a month later) we hear is that the 3rd driver's insurance company is claiming that my wife hit the car in front first, and the last person hit them later.
It turns out that when reporting a claim, the driver of the 1st car said that she felt she was hit twice, and, therefore, my wife hit her first. The 1st and 3rd drivers have the same insurance company.
This is the first time this story appeared. Now, I have no reasons to believe that the 1st driver is being purposefully dishonest. Is it possible that because when the 3rd driver hit my wife's car from behind, the impact accelerated her car toward the 1st car, while the 3rd car was slowing down. A moment later, the 3rd car caught up with our two cars and hit my wife's car again, albeit at a slower speed? Think billiard balls.
What's the best course of action for us? Is there anything we can do to prove the truth?
ANSWER: The scenario that you describe is not very plausible and unless you or your insurance company is willing to spend $10-$15k on a jury trial with some off the wall expert who will state that it is plausible.
Remember that unlike billiard balls, cars have brakes. In this situation both your wife and the 3rd vehicle would have been using the brakes. If you were to argue that your wife were not using the brakes, then the conclusion would become even more obvious to her detriment.
I'm pretty sure that your insurer will end up having to accept a majority liability toward vehicle #1 and the insurer of vehicle #3 will end up only accepting 50% liability toward you. This will leave your insurer paying the other 50% of the total loss.
Good luck to you on this and please remember there is a reason these things are called accidents. If your wife was able to come home to you that day, then that is all that really matters.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Thank you for your prompt reply!
So you think that the Highway Assistance van driver's statement that right after the accident everyone was in agreement that the 3rd driver causes the accident would not be of much help to us? Same for the trooper's statement that this is what he heard the van driver relay to him over the radio?
AnswerOne thing is being an expert in a given field and another is being a physic.
If you read what you have asked and really think about the fact that none of us really know exactly who said what to who, you will realize that there is no way for me to answer this question.
