Initial D World - Discussion Board / Forums
   
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )Resend Validation Email

DJ Panel ( Server Stats )   Song History   Initial D World Chat Room (IRC)   Broadband Stream
RADIO BROADCAST » streaming at 96kbps with 9 unique listeners, playing Yuzo Koshiro - Adrenaline Blowouts The Fear

       

  Automotive Section Rules
Scenes depicted in Initial D are strictly fiction. Please follow the traffic rules and drive safely.
When posting a classified thread, please label it with For Sale (FS), For Trade (FT) or Want To Buy (WTB) in the thread title.
Use the Search function before you start a new topic. Posting a duplicated thread may earn yourself a verbal warning.
Personal videos of illegal street racing are prohibited. Do NOT brag about your exploits. Posting a video depicting dangerous/reckless driving behavior on your part will result in an actual warning.

FORUM MODERATOR : FORUM MODERATOR

 

Views: 510  ·  Replies: 21 
> Got into an accident., 3 cars involved.
ChennyZ
  Posted: Sep 9 2017, 05:31 AM


Japanimaniacs!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 16,120
Joined: Feb 22nd 2006
Location: New York





Location: Brooklyn, N.Y
So the story is...

We came to a red light.
The car infront of me stopped(4x4 Jeep), I stopped (lancer sportback)
The car behind me (Toyota camry) rear ended me and bump me into the car infront (4x4 jeep).

all said and done the toyota who bumped me said he was drinking his milkshake and looked away for a second which caused him to hit me. (his damn milkshake)

There was slight damage to my rear bumper just some scratches here and there no big deal. But my front end was damaged from me being pushed into the Jeep. There is a noticeable square shape damage to my front bumper mid grill section (the square shape came from the tow hitch from the 4x4 jeep)

so we all look at the damages, its all minor but no mechanical damage. but still Toyota guy should be paying for my new bumpers front and back. Moments later the Jeep and Toyota started to team up on me saying i'm not WISE for calling the cops. Its a small fender bender. The cops will just laugh at the damage and walk away. Just let it go and be on our way.

The toyota guy trying to lecture me that if i do a police report my insurance will go up and will be paying a deductible for my damages, but i already know i am not paying nothing! cause his insurance will pay for everything!

Then the Jeep guy claims hes got neck pain from me bumping him. If i call the cops he will sue me (WTF? LOL)

After an hour cops came. I got the police report and we were on our way.
I have the accident on my dash cam. But it does not record what was behind me. It recorded what was in front. Which clearly showed me Jeep stopped, I stopped, then i got rammed.

I have uploaded the video on youtube 7x 60 second clips of this bull shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so4N6Erfjwo

The timestamp on the dash cam isn't correct, will that be an issue for the insurance company? But I have pictures of their plates and damages etc.

Has anyone else been involved in a small fender bender? I am sure the Toyota will be paying for my damages right?

This post has been edited by ChennyZ on Sep 9 2017, 05:33 AM
Sensation!
Posted: Sep 9 2017, 06:57 AM


As expected of country grown vegetables
Group Icon

Group: Special Snowflake
Posts: 2,305
Member No.: 19,520
Joined: Aug 14th 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.





The person doing the rear ending pays all damages. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that.
Nomake Wan
Posted: Sep 9 2017, 11:27 PM


ShiMACHaze
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 19,197
Member No.: 5,394
Joined: Feb 5th 2005
Location: Drydock





QUOTE (Sensation! @ Today, 6:57 AM)
The person doing the rear ending pays all damages. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that.

While this is absolutely correct, it's important to clarify that both parties who rear-ended someone pay the damages. In the incident I was a part of (I stopped, the SUV behind me stopped, the SUV behind him did not), despite insisting in the police report and to my insurance company that the person behind me was not at fault for the accident, it was the insurance of the person behind me that paid for my damages, and his insurance company had to go after the person behind him to be reimbursed both for his own damages and mine.

The reasoning is that if you have left a safe distance between yourself and the person in front of you, you shouldn't be rear-ending people even if rear-ended. For instance, in the video ChennyZ posted, he responds quite late to the fact that the car two cars ahead of him has his brake lights on, and then again quite late to the brake lights of the car ahead of him. By the time he's stopped, he's practically on that guy's bumper. And then wham. Had he reacted sooner, it is possible that the damage could have been avoided. Or the accident, depending on when the person behind him looked away for that milkshake. That's the argument the insurance companies will likely make for this incident.

QUOTE (ChennyZ @ Today, 5:31 AM)
The timestamp on the dash cam isn't correct, will that be an issue for the insurance company? But I have pictures of their plates and damages etc.

You have a police report, you'll be fine on that end.
Proud Contributor of the Music Section Revival Project
Sensation!
Posted: Sep 10 2017, 01:25 PM


As expected of country grown vegetables
Group Icon

Group: Special Snowflake
Posts: 2,305
Member No.: 19,520
Joined: Aug 14th 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.





QUOTE (Nomake Wan @ Today, 12:27 AM)
While this is absolutely correct, it's important to clarify that both parties who rear-ended someone pay the damages. In the incident I was a part of (I stopped, the SUV behind me stopped, the SUV behind him did not), despite insisting in the police report and to my insurance company that the person behind me was not at fault for the accident, it was the insurance of the person behind me that paid for my damages, and his insurance company had to go after the person behind him to be reimbursed both for his own damages and mine.

The reasoning is that if you have left a safe distance between yourself and the person in front of you, you shouldn't be rear-ending people even if rear-ended. For instance, in the video ChennyZ posted, he responds quite late to the fact that the car two cars ahead of him has his brake lights on, and then again quite late to the brake lights of the car ahead of him. By the time he's stopped, he's practically on that guy's bumper. And then wham. Had he reacted sooner, it is possible that the damage could have been avoided. Or the accident, depending on when the person behind him looked away for that milkshake. That's the argument the insurance companies will likely make for this incident.



This is a bicker back and forth between insurance companies, not necessarily a rule. Depending on the state/dmv, there isn't a rule regarding safe distance between the car in front when both cars are stopped. Even if for a split second before being hit, if the car is at a standstill, its stopped.
Technically, the person behind you in your example incident could have likely (and probably did) have gone to court over the claim and won.

The safe distance excuse works both ways, as you can fault the person in the back for disregarding it because otherwise, they wouldn't be rear ending people; the person in front of them stopped just fine.

This post has been edited by Sensation! on Sep 10 2017, 01:57 PM
Nomake Wan
Posted: Sep 10 2017, 04:18 PM


ShiMACHaze
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 19,197
Member No.: 5,394
Joined: Feb 5th 2005
Location: Drydock





That's true. I'm not sure what the law in NY is, but in California a rear-end collision is automatically the fault of the driver who did the rear-ending, regardless of the situation. I highly doubt that the guy behind me went to court--his insurance company, experienced with California claims of this nature, likely just fought it out with the other person's insurance to get the reimbursement.

I just don't want ChennyZ to be surprised if they decide to put some of the fault on him. He should be prepared for that. I don't think it will matter in the end--the person who caused the initial accident will definitely be paying out big time--but there may be some haggling to shift fault.
Proud Contributor of the Music Section Revival Project
umustwait101
Posted: Sep 11 2017, 09:44 PM


Osaka-kun
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 577
Member No.: 45,912
Joined: Sep 27th 2015
Location: Update Profile





I agree with nomake wan. In addition, it also makes a difference whether you were stopped or not when you were rear-ended and forced into the car in front. If you were stopped the case is easier to make that you were not at fault. If you were not stopped then you may be blamed for hitting the car in front. Also, the insurance may go up even without a police report as long as it was reported. The only way for it not to go up is if the incident was not reported. In that case, it becomes kind of risky if you decide to settle things then and there but they disappear or don't follow up, leaving you to pay for the damages.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
sideways
Posted: Sep 28 2017, 10:43 PM


We're the People's Front of Judea!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 13,121
Member No.: 1,355
Joined: Feb 28th 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada





Any update on what happened as far as insurances go?
ChennyZ
  Posted: Nov 3 2017, 05:02 AM


Japanimaniacs!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 16,120
Joined: Feb 22nd 2006
Location: New York





QUOTE (sideways @ Sep 29 2017, 01:43 AM)
Any update on what happened as far as insurances go?

Ok so i am at the final step of the insurance claim.

They sent me a settlement offer letter stating they are only giving up 80% out of 100% of the total damage estimates. Which is $1,321 the total 100% is $1,652 but they are only offering me 80%.

All i have to do is sign and get it notarized then mail the letter back.

I have also talked to my insurance advisor (shes an old friend who i buy my car insurance thru) she states i should fight back and get the full 100% but the thing is i don't want to deal with the headache!

This is what she wrote to me

"Good morning, Based on what I am reading they are offering you $1321.70. They are stating they are only accepting 80% of liability in lieu of the full 100%. I personally do not agree and I would suggest you tell them you are not accepting the 80% ($1321.70) and feel that they should be 100% liable. The problem that can follow is if they refuse to give you the full 100% you are then at a stalemate with the other carrier. NYCM is not able to battle for you since you do not have any collision coverage on your vehicle so they have not paid out any money to try to recoup. It can be a tough situation but I do not agree with the offer they are trying to settle with."

So should i just take the 80% offer and save some headache? It is after all just cosmetic damage and living in NYC it happens everyday with tight parallel parking.
Sensation!
Posted: Nov 3 2017, 06:37 AM


As expected of country grown vegetables
Group Icon

Group: Special Snowflake
Posts: 2,305
Member No.: 19,520
Joined: Aug 14th 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.





This is up to you, it'll end with you taking the other party to court.
If you think your time is more valuable, then skipping out on it might be an option.

That said, being """"20%""""" at fault might be seen in the eyes of your insurance company as a split responsibility accident. Make sure you're not increasing your annual insurance rates by taking their bargain.

If your rates don't go up, then its up to you.

Nomake Wan
Posted: Nov 3 2017, 07:48 AM


ShiMACHaze
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 19,197
Member No.: 5,394
Joined: Feb 5th 2005
Location: Drydock





Sensation! nailed it. As long as your rates will not increase as a result of accepting the 80% from the other company, I'd say do it. Having been through lawsuits before, it's not worth it for a small amount like the 20% here. It just isn't.

However, if your premiums increase because you didn't fight for that 20%, then that 20% will balloon over time into much more, making it completely worth it to drag this through the legal system.

Have a blunt discussion with your insurance company. Ask directly whether accepting the other company's offer will raise your rates. Use that answer to decide whether to accept the offer or not.
Proud Contributor of the Music Section Revival Project
ChennyZ
  Posted: Nov 3 2017, 08:09 AM


Japanimaniacs!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 16,120
Joined: Feb 22nd 2006
Location: New York





I am not at fault with the accident cause i got rear ended after i had stopped. The dash cam proves it all.

I have just called my insurance company and asked them for any chance of rate increases. They stated that if i am NOT at fault there shouldn't be any changes to my monthly rates.

I think i might just take this 80% offer and run with it!

now i just have to get it notarized...the bank does that for free?
Nomake Wan
Posted: Nov 3 2017, 11:52 AM


ShiMACHaze
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 19,197
Member No.: 5,394
Joined: Feb 5th 2005
Location: Drydock





Read the terms on the contract the other company gave you. If it's literally just a check you're fine. If you're admitting 20% fault then your insurance company is warning you that accepting it will raise your rates.

As for notarizing, not a clue, sorry.
Proud Contributor of the Music Section Revival Project
ChennyZ
  Posted: Nov 3 2017, 12:39 PM


Japanimaniacs!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 16,120
Joined: Feb 22nd 2006
Location: New York





Ok so this is the letter they sent me. It doesn't state that i am 20% at fault. So i should be ok?
Or maybe i am just reading it wrong

user posted image

user posted image

Nomake Wan
Posted: Nov 3 2017, 03:47 PM


ShiMACHaze
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 19,197
Member No.: 5,394
Joined: Feb 5th 2005
Location: Drydock





I don't like the phrasing, personally. All it says is, "Take this money, and if you take this money, then you agree that our insured driver is NOT at fault." It doesn't say that they can't sue you. It doesn't say that you aren't at fault. It doesn't say that by signing, both parties agree to drop their claims.

I don't like stuff written so that one party is absolved of all problems and the other party is left hanging. If it were me, I would go back to them and demand they re-write the agreement so that it says in no unclear terms that both parties are denying fault and that the amount specified is a compromise after which all claims will be dropped.
Proud Contributor of the Music Section Revival Project
Sensation!
Posted: Nov 3 2017, 08:23 PM


As expected of country grown vegetables
Group Icon

Group: Special Snowflake
Posts: 2,305
Member No.: 19,520
Joined: Aug 14th 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.





QUOTE
This means that if our insured is only partially responsible for the loss, your claim for property damage will only be partially reimbursed........we have determined our insured to be 80% responsible for the accident


Yeah, I'd notarize the paper with a shit smear and tell them to see you in court. It basically says you're 20% at fault.

Your premiums will rise.

This post has been edited by Sensation! on Nov 3 2017, 08:26 PM
Nomake Wan
Posted: Nov 4 2017, 03:33 AM


ShiMACHaze
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 19,197
Member No.: 5,394
Joined: Feb 5th 2005
Location: Drydock





QUOTE (Sensation! @ 7 hours, 9 minutes ago)

Yeah, I'd notarize the paper with a shit smear and tell them to see you in court. It basically says you're 20% at fault.

Your premiums will rise.

The first document he posted is irrelevant. I would simply not include it with the documents when mailed back. It's the second document, the "Release and Settlement," that is actually important and the only one necessary to notarize.

It's that second document which doesn't specifically say that the claim is being dropped and that no party is at fault. It only says that their client isn't if you sign off and accept the money, which is bogus.
Proud Contributor of the Music Section Revival Project
ChennyZ
  Posted: Nov 4 2017, 06:03 AM


Japanimaniacs!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 16,120
Joined: Feb 22nd 2006
Location: New York





Wow i didn't notice it until i was reading it slower and more carefully.

Thanks for the input guys. Ill call their insurer back and see if i can get them to change the statement.

ill keep you updated.
Spaz
Posted: Nov 4 2017, 09:10 AM


I just wanna go fast
Group Icon

Group: FORUM MODERATOR
Posts: 9,194
Member No.: 30,193
Joined: Jul 25th 2008
Location: Plymouth, MN





Annnd this is one of the reasons I like Minnesota. As much as a no fault state sucks for insurance rates in the event of an accident, it takes all the legal BS out of it. You get your check from your insurer, you pay your deductible, and the companies go after each other on their own to settle. I had to explain the whole process to a customer yesterday who was picking up a vehicle that got rear ended and didn't expect to be paying his deductible, and that did kinda suck though.

Regardless, in this situation, it's your call. Insurance legal battles suck, especially when you have to drive around a damaged vehicle until it's resolved, and generally that's how they get you to give up and settle. Stuff on your record really doesn't affect your rates anymore after a few years, but you may want to reach out to your agent and ask, and even have them run hypothetical numbers and see before you decide.
ChennyZ
  Posted: Nov 6 2017, 07:45 AM


Japanimaniacs!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 16,120
Joined: Feb 22nd 2006
Location: New York





ok so i called the insurance company telling them that the document doesn't state that I myself am at no fault with this accident and i mention me taking 80% of the money is not a problem as long as the statement writes that i am at No Fault. This lady keeps ignoring about putting me at no fault and keeps repeating that "yes by signing you are given a check 80% of the money"

idk if what i'm saying is making sense? hah basically what i told them is i won't having a problem taking 80% of the money as long as you add in the statement that I won't be at fault by taking this money. The lady ignores that and goes to there will be a check under your name.
Nomake Wan
Posted: Nov 6 2017, 09:32 AM


ShiMACHaze
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 19,197
Member No.: 5,394
Joined: Feb 5th 2005
Location: Drydock





If you can't get them to figure it out, have you called your insurance company to see if they can do something about it?

I mean, at this point dude, you can either keep fighting and try to get someone on the phone who understands what you're trying to say, accept the 80% (and the potential rate hike), or go to court.

Best of luck.
Proud Contributor of the Music Section Revival Project
ChennyZ
  Posted: Yesterday, 11:39 AM


Japanimaniacs!
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 16,120
Joined: Feb 22nd 2006
Location: New York





so update on this situation.
I have called them 3 times. Each time different person answers.
All 3 times i have told them i can't accept the offer at me being 20% at fault.
What their response was "i will submit a form to the higher ups stating you rejected the offer"

I have gotten no response back after trying 3 times. I believe at this point they are pulling my strings!
Nomake Wan
Posted: Yesterday, 2:20 PM


ShiMACHaze
**********

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 19,197
Member No.: 5,394
Joined: Feb 5th 2005
Location: Drydock





Sounds like you have to take them to court. Best of luck!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]
Proud Contributor of the Music Section Revival Project