Tips for a beginner

[jonbest]

Hey, all, first post- lots of interesting stuff here!

Just wanted to weigh in on this a bit. I've been in liability claims for some time. While I've handled thousands of claims, not hundreds of thousands, I can't recall a single accident where a person, established in their lane and driving below the speed limit (by any margin) was considered negligent in a way that affected the outcome of the claim. Not in decisions made by me or other adjusters, not in decisions made by judges or juries.

I think it's human nature to defend our own personal status quo- when I used to drive fast, all the time, it was the slow drivers that were probably going to get somebody killed. Heck, I can go from sitting on a road bike and thinking 'those idiots in cars' to sitting in my car on the SAME ROAD on the SAME DAY thinking 'those idiots on their bikes'!

But the short version is, generally, driving faster = more accidents. Driving slower = less (regardless of the number of cars involved).

If you're going the speed limit (much less speeding), and rear-end somebody who's going 20 under, it's your fault. There would have to be some VERY extenuating circumstances to mitigate that at all. I am always waiting for somebody to make the case that one one of those posted-minimum-speed interstates, somebody was going below the 40mph posted minimum and was thus negligent- haven't seen that one come up yet.

Jon

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

Or economy minded.

You are right that accidents can happen at any time and in any place, but in my experience, slow drivers contribute just as much to the total number of accidents as speeders. The disparity in speeds and the inaccurate expectations of other drivers cause a large number of accidents. Regardless of whether you feel you are justified for traveling less than the posted speed limit, if another driver inaccurately gauges your speed/acceleration and hits you, you were still -- at least partly -- the cause of the accident.

[Ladogaboy]

My experience with adjustors is that they assume both parties to be at least partially culpable. When I was side swiped, the adjustors accused me of being partially at fault because I didn't move out of the way when the other person merged into me. I also know a couple of people who were found 50% culpable when the other party rear ended them.

[jonbest]

50% seems like a lot, unless they had just pulled out in front of the other party (or there was an allegation of it with no independent witnesses).

Every state is different, most of my experience is in VA/NC, which are contributory negligence states- that means if you contribute 1%, you're completely barred from recovery. From an adjusters' standpoint, that means 'pay or deny,' knowing an improper denial would likely end up in court.

The courts look at that 1% as probably more like 5-10%, so I wouldn't deny a claim where somebody ran a stop sign and hit you, and you happened to be going 52 in a 45.

Most other states allow for reduced recovery, CA is one. So they're rolling smaller dice by saying you're 15% at fault, because they can offer to pay 85%. Old New York adjusters used to say 'legally parked and unoccupied' was the only 0% negligence claim.

And I'm not going to name companies, but there are some that are completely unreasonable as a general business practice.

Jon

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

My experience with adjustors is that they assume both parties to be at least partially culpable. When I was side swiped, the adjustors accused me of being partially at fault because I didn't move out of the way when the other person merged into me. I also know a couple of people who were found 50% culpable when the other party rear ended them.