Not the S2K but our leased Saab. My girlfriend was in an accident yesterday, after she pulled out of our driveway. We live on a one way street. Across the street is a school, where it is a nightmare everyday to leave because parents double park and block our driveway. To make a long story short after she was in the street a woman (Nissan Pathfinder) who was parked in a no parking zone, for some reason decided to go in reverse down the street and plowed into our car completely tearing off the rear bumper and smashing in the rear quarter panel. She came at us from an angle. The woman admitted fault and offered to pay out of pocket. We filed a police report, and I asked the officer to put that she admitted fault but he said it wasn't necessary. I got an estimate and faxed and phoned her she said she wanted her guy to take a look at it next week. Screw that, we are probably out of a car for a week for repairs as it is. So I informed my insurance company. Now I didn't realize it but it turns out we have the same insurance company and the company is saying that I have to pay out of pocket (deductible) because I am partially liable. How the hell is that? I know someone here works for the insurance company so maybe you can enlighten me on how this is not a scam. The damage is estimated at $3200 plus a rental at $35 a day that I can only get $25 back on according to Ins Co. Do I have any other options here or am I screwed for not waiting?

[Edited by turbo_pwr on 03-20-2001 at 01:02 PM]

 

Sounds like New York is a "No Fault" state. The insurance company will assign some degree of fault to you with few exceptions.

 

If it wasn't your fault, you shouldn't have to pay anything, whether you have the same insurance company or not. I had someone rear-end me several years ago that was with the same insurance company as I was and I didn't have to pay a cent. They treated me like shit and were giving me a hard time about the cost of the repairs, even though I was not at fault and was one of their own customers, so I switched companies as soon as I graduated from college. I figured if they treat their own customers like that I didn't want to give them any of my business. Let your insurance company know that you're also one of their customers and that could change based on how they handle this situation.

Mark

 

New York is a no fault state.

 

So if I am understanding no fault right. It would appear that if you caused the accident you want to go through insurance because you pay less. If you are the innocent party it would be more beneficial to have the guilty party pay you out of pocket. Anybody else think this is screwy? No fault seems to be weighed toward the bad drivers.

 

So what is a "no-fault" state? Does that mean I can go to one, ram into somebody's car and they are half responsible for purchasing the car and leaving it in a location where I could run into it? It makes no sense in this situation. If the other driver was the one at fault, why should the victim be punished even further by having to pay part of the deductible? (and deal with the higher insurance rates that come afterwards) Could somebody please explain?

Mark

 

Actually Dan, it sounds like it's weighted towards the insurance companies. It's a win-win situation for them.

 

Definitely weighted towards the insurance companies. New Jersey is a no fault state as well. I was hit head on by a drunk driver, not at a very high speed thank god, but I was found 10% at fault. I did everything I could to avoid getting hit short of hitting someone else or a Jersey barrier. The reason they gave was that if I hadn't been driving my car on that road on that day I wouldn't have been hit. What a bunch of B.S. My insurance company at the time, State Farm, said just about the only way I wouldn't have been at fault was if my car was parked at my primary residence. I was majorly P.O.ed at this but there seemed to be no way around it. The only positive thing was that State Farm didn't jack my rates.

 

Wow, that's ridiculous. A drunk driver runs into you and you're 10% responsible because you were out driving?!?!? They should have taken that logic a little farther to be fair. The company that manufactured the bottle that the liquor came in that the drunk driver drank should be at least 2% responsible. If they hadn't made the bottle, then the guy wouldn't have been drunk and there wouldn't have been an accident. Hell, why don't they blame everybody that had any connection so that the actual idiot who made the choice to drive drunk isn't responsible at all. I can't believe this is law in some states. (I hope Texas isn't one of them) Any lawmaker that would pass a law like this obviously doesn't give a shit about his constituents. Where exactly does the consumer win here? I'm sure the insurance companies claimed this would lower rates. I'm sure their profit margins weren't helped by this at all.

Mark

 

It sounds more like "everybodys' fault" rather than "no fault."