Car Insurance Liability in Parking Lots

[Green Machine]

I was driving through a parking lot today and approached a car pulling up to a stop sign on the thoroughfare of the parking lot. He had come to a complete stop at the stop line and I came to a stop about three feet behind him. All of a sudden he starts backing up and swinging to the right towards an open spot perpendicular to both our cars. He hadn't signaled or even glanced behind him to see that I was clearly blocking his path to the spot. I immediately honked but it wasn't quick enough to prevent him from hitting my bumper.

We both exited our Vehicles and he apologizes while going off on a tangent about how he is going through a divorce right now and didn't see me. I told him I would have given him room to turn into the spot had he made any indication that was his intention and that I had obviously thought he was going to continue forward through the stop sign and expected him to see me because people normally look behind them or check their mirrors before reversing.

Upon inspecting the damage it becomes apparent that my car has sustained two vertical impressions about 2 inches apart and 3.5 inches high in the plastic bumper panel. His car looks to have a dented bumper as well but it is hard to tell because it seems to have previous damage that couldn't have occurred from our low velocity single point of impact. His rear quarter panel also had damage on it that he indicated that his daughter had done to it earlier and he had yet to get fixed.

I had heard before that Parking lot collisions very frequently get split fifty fifty on liability regardless of what actually occurred. So when he asked if I wanted to exchange insurance information even though he and I both knew that it was completely his fault I did a quick risk / benefit analysis and decided it wasn't worth it. I drive an 06 Magnum with 160k on it that is maybe worth 5k. It already has hail damage and a dented rear bumper from someone rear ending me so the damaged front bumper isn't the only thing downgrading it from pristine condition and it's financial impact upon resale is likely less than five hundred dollars. I didn't think it was worth the risk that my premiums increase over fairly minor damage that doesn't bother me enough that I would pay out of my own pocket to fix. I asked him about insurance liability in parking lots and he seemed to think it was fifty/fifty as well so it seems he had full intention on trying to split the damages between our insurance companies despite the fact that I wasn't moving at the time he backed into me.

Given my uncertainty of how the claim would be handled and the fact that the damage was fairly minor on a somewhat older vehicle, I told him that the damage didn't seem that bad and perhaps we don't bother. He seemed happy with that, thanked me, shook my hand, and we parted ways.

I was curious if anyone knows the specific rules regarding liability in a parking lot collision and how they would apply to this situation. I tried looking it up and seem to get conflicting information. Regardless, I probably won't pursue this specific incident any further as it was me that suggested we not pursue it, but would like to know if my impression of parking lot liability was correct.

[GGG]

I was just backed into while I was in the Lane. I asked my adjuster about the 50/50 and he says it was a myth and fault is still assessed. In my case the other oart was 100% at fault

[T@T]

This fifty fifty split is horsecrap. If true I have a business enemy from 5 years ago who owns a nice jag...seems like a good time to buy a $500.00 beater.

[InSutterWeTrust]

When I originally read the thread title I expected this to be about the Audi with bricks falling on it. Anyway carry on.....

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by GGG

I was just backed into while I was in the Lane. I asked my adjuster about the 50/50 and he says it was a myth and fault is still assessed. In my case the other oart was 100% at fault

Yep I had this exact same situation in a parking lot and I was 0% at fault.

[RW99]

If he gives the same story, you are 0% at fault. But if I learned one thing from adjusting, it is that more often then not someone will lie to try and get away with being not at fault.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RW99

If he gives the same story, you are 0% at fault. But if I learned one thing from adjusting, it is that more often then not someone will lie to try and get away with being not at fault.

Especially in this case where the evidence points to you being at fault. Accident occured at stop sign, you have front end damage, he has rear end damage. If he came with a you rear ended him story he is more likely to be believed.

[calgarywinning]

This is a matter of being hit or doing the hit. It would normally be resolved between the citizens, if not then the coppers would be called.

[fredr123]

Most insurance companies in Canada are signatories to the Insurance Bureau of Canada's Claims Agreement. The Claims Agreement deals with, among other things, how insurance companies will apportion fault in different circumstances involving motor vehicle accidents. The Claims Agreement is not readily available online, however:

Insurance companies, like people, sometimes disagree about who is responsible for what. Claimants should not be greatly inconvenienced in these situations, and should be able to have a claim resolved and paid expeditiously. Therefore, Insurance Bureau of Canada administers several voluntary agreements among insurance companies that are designed to facilitate settlements and reduce or eliminate legal and court costs. They provide insurers with an inexpensive mechanism to determine which insurer is ultimately responsible for paying the claim. Policyholders and third-party claimants are not party to these agreements.

IBC members can access full text of the agreements on IBC’s secure members’ website, InfoSource. Non-members should contact memberservices@ibc.ca for more information.

Ontario has Fault Determination Rules which are regulations under the local Insurance Act. They, unsurprisingly, contain rules for... determining... fault in automobile accidents: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/reg...s_900668_e.htm

I'm not a huge fan of rules of thumb and I think, despite what they may say, there are circumstances where someone who might be at fault under the rules would have a pretty solid defence if the matter was taken to trial. I can, however, see the value in trying to resolve disputes without having to take every case to trial.

[RW99]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'm not a huge fan of rules of thumb and I think, despite what they may say, there are circumstances where someone who might be at fault under the rules would have a pretty solid defence if the matter was taken to trial. I can, however, see the value in trying to resolve disputes without having to take every case to trial.

These rules are for insurance companies to make quick decisions between themselves and argue over every claim. It does not fully mean that as a client you will be given the same decision. If something gets settled 50/50, but your insurance company believes you were not at fault, you could still have a not at fault claim.

[Green Machine]

Thanks for the responses. I kind of figured 50/50 liability, regardless of the circumstances, didn't make sense. It certainly does seem to be commonly accepted though. Oh well, At least I'm better informed now. I still think It may not have been worth the risk to pursue a claim as my prior experience with insurance companies leads me to believe that they will take any opportunity they can to raise your rates.