I posted this yesterday on Facebook, and I received some valid feedback about this whole business I spoke about revolving around my liability for my car accident.
This post basically followed up on what I told you yesterday, so I am going to run it here, too.
Maybe you have something else to say about it?
Personally, I can accept it, but boy, what an explanation!
"Anyone in the insurance industry that can read this? Today in my blog, I speak about my May 10 auto accident, where a young driver shot out of a side street, never stopping at the Stop sign, and T-boned my car, totaling it. The car turned over on its roof, and ended up on the sidewalk.
Anyway, we are lucky that my family and I came out of this unhurt.
However, the other insurance company claimed that I was liable for a portion of the accident, and an arbitrator ruled yesterday that I was liable for 15 percent of the accident.
I just called my insurance company, and while they are still listing me as zero percent at fault for the accident, the reason that I am 15 percent liable for the accident--and will, thus, only get back 85 percent of my deductible--is that they attribute that I had a failure to notice my locale properly, not realizing that it was an "accident situation" before the actual accident occurred.
They were also unable to determine if speed was a factor in my loss.
It was starting to rain. I had my lights on and my wipers on. Everyone was in their seat belt in the car.
What more could I do to "notice my locale properly" and "realize that it was an 'accident situation' before the actual accident occurred?"
Was I supposed to pull over to the side of road, and wait until the rain ended?
This proves to me that the insurance industry is nothing but vultures. The whole thing stinks. I was the one who was hit because a kid went through a Stop sign at an accelerated rate and never saw my car. My car was totaled, and they don't know if speed was a factor?
Like the adjuster told me several months ago, "You are going to be partially to blame because you were where you were at the point of contact."
Ludicrous, but if somebody in the industry, or outside the industry, has another take on this, I am all ears (and eyes).
So basically what I was told that since I was where I was at the point of contact, I am at least partially at fault for the accident.
Have you ever heard such hooey in all of your life?
Even the woman at my insurance company who told me about this agreed with me.
An arbitrator made the ruling so I have no recourse, but boy, in what other field would an explanation like that be valid?
I don't pretend to understand the insurance industry, but if this is an example of the parameters that they use, we are literally all sunk before we even turn the key and start the car.
At least my insurance company believes me, and my rates will not rise due to the accident.
But let me tell you, my opinion of the insurance industry has just been crafted due to this ridiculousness, and it will take a lot for me to change my mind about this industry.