Accident/insurance experience FYI

latetoschool · January 22, 2006, 7:30pm

Just in case this helps anyone else - gave daughter my old Ford Taurus, she took it college.

October, I got the call we all dread - “mom, I’ve been in an accident”. No one was injured and both cars were drivable, so after police reports were taken, insurance companies called, witnesses interviewed and my daughter given a citation for running a red light, everyone drove home.

My insurance rates nearly doubled - immediately. Daughter’s ticket was $130 plus three points plus driving school.

Daughter went to court, pled not guilty, demanded a trial. Court people said “just plead no contest and we’ll discount the fine and waive the points” - daughter said “no, I’m not guity, I want a trial”.

First trial date was postponed (hurricane). Finally, she got her trial four days before Christmas, went in armed with the state driving handbook, the state statutes, photographs, stats, etc. All the witnesses and police appeared. The abridged version is that (1) the police officer filled out the report wrong - there is no left turn red light at the intersection where the accident happened, therefore D could not have run a red light; (2) the other driver entered the intersection and crashed into daughter while she was completing a left turn; (3) the other driver violated a few other state statutes, etc. The judge adminished the police officer and a witness, and daughter left court with a finding of “not guilty”. (I wasn’t there, but I’m sorry I missed it.)

Good enough so far, but then there’s still the matter of my insurance rates are nearly double what they were before this other driver steered his Lexus into my old Ford Taurus. So we called up the good people at Geico. It turns out that a finding of “not guilty” in court is meaningless to them - apparently insurance companies have their own internal jurisprudence decisioning process as it relates to rate increases due to accidents. They literally said that even though the court said “not guilty”, my daughter is still very guilty by their standards, based on the information they have.

After nearly two hours of telephone discussion with the insurance company’s accident investigator, and after mailing off photographs, etc., at least we have the matter under review - turns out that the other driver worked the phones rather agressively, and so Geico’s starting place was that daughter was totally at fault in the accident. Their facts and the “real” facts are very far apart. So we may get our rate adjusted down again. I guess it will depend on how relentlessly we work the phones.

Daughter was surprised, saying “I didn’t know you had to lobby to be treated fairly by your insurance carrier. I thought you just told the truth and everybody got it”.

We’re probably very naive.

jmmom · January 22, 2006, 7:41pm

Hmmm. I had a different experience with Progressive. A fender-bender which was my fault, but was under $1000 damage to the other car, was mistakenly reported to the State. Only $1000+ need be reported to either state or ins. co, so I never did. But the co. picked it up from state records. Insurance went up, up, up. I called Progressive (actually my independent agent) and the State. Got a great gal at the State who arranged to delete the report based on my copy of police report verifying <$1000. Took a few weeks, but insurance rate was adjusted down, retroactively.

Different circumstances, but it raises the question of how much depends on the particular company or particular person you talk to. In fact, having an independent agent go to bat in the process was a big help, I think.

newmassdad · January 22, 2006, 7:49pm

Because auto insurance is regulated under state law, things like this will vary a lot by state. In MA, for instance, the legal determination rules and insurance companies must abide by it.

In some states, the insurance carriers can use whatever criteria they want. I’ve heard of any accident counting, with no consideration of fault.

In cases like this, it pays (sometimes a lot…) to shop around. Maybe that time has arrived.

momofonly · January 22, 2006, 7:53pm

Latetoschool,

As you’re paying those exorbitant insurance rates, at least you can be proud of your daughter for going the distance and standing up for herself in court. I’d be really proud of her :)

latetoschool · January 22, 2006, 8:05pm

Momofonly, I am of course very proud of her. I’m especially pleased that she didn’t take the “deal” offered at what I’m now remembering was called the “pre trial conference”. It was her decision to take the matter to court, and one of the witnesses caught up with her on the way out, complimented her on her representation and encouraged her to consider law school. Turns out the witness is married to a lawyer - anyway, that was a class act considering the judge ruled against her. Mostly I am just very relieved that she wasn’t hurt. Still wish I could have been there though - would have been interesting to watch.

Newmassdad, does that mean that - although the insurance company is national, they will apply different rates algorithms to different states, according to the law of each? I wonder what stops them from making up for restricted or lost revenue in your state by overcharging persons in my state?

calmom · January 22, 2006, 8:24pm

LTS, I would suggest that now might be a good time to compare rates from other companies. Since d has been found “not guilty” in court, whatever Geico’s policies are, you probably won’t have to disclose this accident to othe companies – or at least you will be able to start from the position that it was the other driver’s fault. There are some web sites that let you quickly compare rates from one company to the next. Unless there is some reason for sticking with Geico, you may find it a lot easier to shop and switch at this point than to deal with their review process.

I do want to add a word of praise for your daughter. If she enjoyed the process of preparing her case (even though she hated having the ticket), she should take the suggestion of law school very seriously. (I have to admit, one of my favorite parts of lawyering was being able to question cops on the witness stand – kind of fun to have them in the hot seat, especially when they were clearly in the wrong and trying to worm their way out with lame excuses).

newmassdad · January 22, 2006, 9:49pm

Late, basiclly, Geico, and any other insurance company, must run its insurance operations in each state by the laws of that state. IF the state has laws regarding driver rating, and not all do, then the insurer is bound by that state’s laws, for drivers insured in that state. That’s why insurers want to know where the car is - where it is “garaged” in insurance speak. If you give them misleading information (you generally, not you specifically!) in order to save a few $, like using the address of your summer home in NH, where rates are much lower than MA, IF an accident occurs and the insurance company finds out, they can void your policy. High stakes. If the insurance company were to knowingly get it wrong, they could lose their license in that state.

To more specifically answer your question of what keeps them from overcharging in one state to make up for losses in another state, the answer is nothing…except competition, if the states are open insurance markets.

Political meddling, usually to protect one group over another, is more likely to create problems for insured than any competitive factor, IMHO.

alwaysamom · January 22, 2006, 10:31pm

latetoschool, there really are two issues here. First, the increase in your rates and second, the issue of fault. Actually, you could add a third by including the traffic charge. Unfortunately, just because someone beats a traffic charge, that isn’t always enough to declare them ‘not guilty’, or not responsible for the accident.

If I’m understanding you correctly, your daughter was making a left hand turn and the other car was coming straight through the intersection, in effect travelling in the opposite direction to your daughter prior to her turn. Is that correct? It sounds like the police officer charged her with the wrong offence, failing to stop at a red light rather than failing to yield while making a left hand turn (or similar language depending on your state).

If my assumptions are correct, then it’s not surprising that her traffic charge was dismissed, as she wasn’t guilty of running a red light, if there was not one at that intersection. However, in every jurisdiction that I’m aware of, a person making a left turn must yield to oncoming traffic. Whether she was almost finished her turn or not isn’t really the issue. The turning car is almost always found to be at fault for this type of accident.

Does your state have any type of no-fault insurance? Even if they don’t, often insurance companies have agreements which facilitate the settlement of large numbers of claims for accidents of different types. You should inquire if this is the case with your company. If it is, they should be able to tell you what that agreement states regarding the application of ‘fault’ in a left turn situation.

Sometimes, although the claims are handled in this methodical and time-saving way, companies will adjust how the resultant increase in rates occurs. Your company, or your agent or broker, should be able to explain this to you, regardless whether or not there is such an agreement.

JeepMOM · January 22, 2006, 11:48pm

May not be such a bad idea as to contact the Insurance Commission of the state you are dealing with about the outcome of the citation and the insurance rate - it may be that the commission has the answers. We had to do this - my son was in an accident - not his fault - was given ‘‘points’’ which of course raised his insurance - we fought this hard - as this situation sits on the insurance rolls for 6 years!!! - and we won!!! - the points were removed and the record was corrected. It is definitely worth fighting for.

volunteer_mom · January 23, 2006, 10:07am

My son was in an auto accident while making a left hand turn. He started into the turn and then an elementary school student who was looking back, started across the intersection. He stopped to let her pass and a speeding truck with no insurance and out of state license plates hit the passenger door totalling the car. Fortunately, no one was injured. (Chevrolet Caprice cars are built very solid!) My son was given a ticket for failure to yield right of way turning left. Our attorney told us that if you are turning left you are always considered to be at fault.

fendergirl · January 23, 2006, 9:00pm

All types of insurance vary from state to state. You’d be amazed to see how health insurance varies across the board.

And as far as car accidents go, a lot of insurance companies put your rates up regardless of whose fault it really is.

amith1 · January 24, 2006, 12:12pm

IF you have questions regarding insurance and how things are being handled, you can always call the insurance commission for your state. They can help with if things are being done properly, the reputation of the insurance company etc. you can file a report if needed. I filed one many years ago and the company was fined extensively for not acting quickly on a claim.

hayden · January 24, 2006, 2:18pm

volunteer mom and alwaysamom are right on target. A criminal finding, or a fine, follow one set of proofs, while a negligence action follows a different standard. Your daughter can be innocent of a legal offense, thereby avoiding the ticket, while still be found negligent and liable for damages to the other driver.

To even go a step further, not only is it correct that drivers turning left are almost always at fault - any accident that occurs while the driver is outside of their “own” lane often finds that driver at fault. For instance, if a deer suddenly runs out in front of you, and you swerve into another car’s lane to avoid it, you are at fault. (Exception may be if you have to swerve to avoid another car or pedestrian.)

In addition, the other driver could potentially sue for physical damage up until the statute of limitations has past, depending on your state laws of course. (If the damage is insignificant, they may not bother, regardless of the state.)

But congratulations to your daughter for how she handled herself, and glad she won her case.

latetoschool · January 24, 2006, 9:34pm

Thanks for all the responses. For what it’s worth - as told to me - she had a green turn arrow and a clear intersection, proceeded into the turn, and then had to stop at nearly the completion of the turn because of suddenly stalled traffic. This is a very large city with lots of congestions so sudden traffic tangles are common.

The other driver had a red light, then got a green light while D was sitting almost through the intersection. When his light turned green, he went from stop to go, and drove right into D. Damage to her right rear quarter panel.

State statute and common sense both say you’re not supposed to (1) enter an intersection that isn’t clear and (2) accelerate into other vehicles.

This particular intersection is very close to her college, and locals have since told us that turning left wasn’t the problem - to a person they’ve told us it’s commonly believed that ANY time there’s any accident, and a college student is one of the drivers, the student gets cited, regardless of what really happened. Some people say it’s because the university wants excellent relations with the community.

When D called to tell me this, I told her to FOIA the police reports of all accidents at all intersections connected to the campus for the last school year. She did, but the results didn’t arrive in time for her court date. Her plan was that if she didn’t win in court, she was going to ask for a stay, and appeal (I’m guessing there’s an appelate court for traffic tickets) and use the information as part of an appeal, I’m pretty sure she told me the results she received since supported the “picking on students” belief.

She also showed me a surprising statistic, she dug out of somewhere that for this city. accident rates 20-24 year olds are actually LOWER than for 49-55 year olds - the age range of the other driver; accidents with injuries, 20-24 year olds lower still. (I think I have the exact age range numbers wrong but he’s 50.) She took this material into court as well, although I have no idea how/why she thought it was applicable to the case.

I am hoping to learn something regarding our rates this week. If not satisfied, I’ll shop for rates, and follow the suggestion to call the state insurance commissioner.

Accident/insurance experience FYI

CONNECT WITH US