Story of a ######bag: Any recourse?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I entirely disagree. The IBC Agreement is an arrangement between insurance companies and does not in any way alter the obligation owed by the insurer to their insured. The IBC Agreement is simply a method for insurance companies to settle differences between themselves, to cut internal and legal costs.

From the IBC Website:
"Because policyholders and third-party claimants are not party to these agreements, they are not bound by them and may seek other avenues to resolution."

As I said, tell your insurer to meet their obligations to you and you're done with it.

If there is continuing disagreement I'll pull some case law over the weekend when I get time and post it.

I'd love to see the cases that you're going to pull. The IBC fault chart is based on case law and is in place specifically for these situations. It sucks, but if both vehicles are backing out (which I am assuming is the case here) then its 50-50, end of story.

The obligations from the insurer are to act in good faith and settle the claim in an expeditious manner. They are doing so if they investigate and apply the fault chart.

As far as the comment about not being bound that is true...but what that means is that you can not do any of this through insurance and you can try to take the matter to civil court. As the damages are under $25,000 that means small claims court...and rolling the dice to see if you can do better than the 50-50 deal you would have in place this way.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'd love to see the cases that you're going to pull. The IBC fault chart is based on case law and is in place specifically for these situations. It sucks, but if both vehicles are backing out (which I am assuming is the case here) then its 50-50, end of story.

The obligations from the insurer are to act in good faith and settle the claim in an expeditious manner. They are doing so if they investigate and apply the fault chart.

As far as the comment about not being bound that is true...but what that means is that you can not do any of this through insurance and you can try to take the matter to civil court. As the damages are under $25,000 that means small claims court...and rolling the dice to see if you can do better than the 50-50 deal you would have in place this way.

That's a better way to put it than Raekwon did, and I agree with more of what you've said.

But the insurer has the obligation to defend their insured if they assert they were in the right, based on the facts they assert and provided those facts could avoid liability, unless its clear they're in the wrong. The insurance company can't negotiate away their insured's rights because the IBC agreement has predetermined the outcome based on percentages of case law. The insurer MUST defend an insured asserting a reasonable statement of facts. Every fact situation is different and applying a 'chart' to say to your insured, "I don't care if you disagree and the damage on the vehicles supports you, I'm paying anyway and deeming you partially at fault".

Now the insurer doesn't actually have to defend their insured in court. They can (and often do) pay 50/50 under the IBC agreement anyway, just to avoid the expense of (properly) defending their own insured. The difference is that when they do that, if their insured assets his rights, they can not count it as an accident against the insured's policy or apply a deductible.

If the adjuster suggests to the insured that they were 50/50 at fault, and the insured agrees, then so be it. But that's not what the OP has stated.

[flip]

This doesn't really help your situation but I got backed into buy an guy in his 50s or so driving an Acura. He totally could have said it was my fault, even though he was clearly not looking while backing out of his spot, but was nice enough to just pay for the $400 repair to my bumper. It was about 2 months after I got my first car (sadly that was only a year ago) and I told him I was a university student.

He even asked me why I bought that and I said it was cheap and I could only afford a car as nice as that. Nissan Sentra in case you're wondering. And it is true that is all I could afford, but I get the feeling had I not told him he wouldn't have been so generous.

Seemed like a nice enough guy, but I'm not sure he would have paid if I was some random 40yo person.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Delgar

That's a better way to put it than Raekwon did, and I agree with more of what you've said.

But the insurer has the obligation to defend their insured if they assert they were in the right, based on the facts they assert and provided those facts could avoid liability, unless its clear they're in the wrong. The insurance company can't negotiate away their insured's rights because the IBC agreement has predetermined the outcome based on percentages of case law. The insurer MUST defend an insured asserting a reasonable statement of facts. Every fact situation is different and applying a 'chart' to say to your insured, "I don't care if you disagree and the damage on the vehicles supports you, I'm paying anyway and deeming you partially at fault".

Now the insurer doesn't actually have to defend their insured in court. They can (and often do) pay 50/50 under the IBC agreement anyway, just to avoid the expense of (properly) defending their own insured. The difference is that when they do that, if their insured assets his rights, they can not count it as an accident against the insured's policy or apply a deductible.

If the adjuster suggests to the insured that they were 50/50 at fault, and the insured agrees, then so be it. But that's not what the OP has stated.

So you say that it was better explained then continue to disagree. Whatever you feel is right. I'm pretty sure I did say that it was a quick post while I was at work, and my post explained the insurance side of this situation. I didn't respond to your post because i'm here to give advice not to argue. Its clear that a large portion of people posting don't understand how to deal with an accident and the claims process of insurance.

[Kev]

By looking at where the damage is on the cars, it will make it easier to see who was at fault. Where was the damage on your finacee's car?

[Peanut]

Ugh... so frustrating. Sorry to hear the guy is being such a dink.

I don't really have any personal experience, but I think one potential avenue for recourse is small claims court? Although from what I know of small claims court, it's rarely worth the hassle.

[simmer2]

We filed a police report before the other guy, but he also filed one telling his side of the story.

It happened in an intersection of all places; the guy was in front and the light turned red so he backed up to get out of the intersection and ran into her front bumper. So unfortunately where the damage is, it's not obvious who's fault it was.

Thanks for all the responses everybody. The Constable called my fiancee yesterday and I guess the ######'s insurance info was filed incorrectly on the police report so if he can't get the correct info then that may work. Either way this is such a frustrating situation. I just can't believe people would have such a lack of principle....but at least we beat the Oilers last night.

Originally Posted by an_album_cover

This.

Seriously though, you should have filed a report immediately after. I have a buddy who got royally screwed just because the other party beat him to a police report.

Sorry, I have nothing else to offer. Just wanted to emphasize that a police report, whether you think you need one or not, is a good idea.

Good luck!



They're not going to CSI a simple fender bender. From my friend's situation that I just mentioned, he took the other party to court. Had photos from the accident and even had a police officer provide a damage report. The judge dismissed all of it because neither of them are "collision experts", or some other BS.

Obviously, this is an extreme case, but you never know what whack job is going to determine your fate.

[RW99]

Originally Posted by simmer2

It happened in an intersection of all places; the guy was in front and the light turned red so he backed up to get out of the intersection and ran into her front bumper. So unfortunately where the damage is, it's not obvious who's fault it was.

Sorry to hear it. You mentioned in your first post that they were going to split the deductables, which I assume is 50/50 responsibility.

Consider yourself somewhat lucky. You saved 50% of your deductable when it could have very easily been 100% at fault for your fiancee. 50% and 100% at fault means the same thing to her policy. Still, not the 0% you were looking for. But given the situation, no witnesses, the insurance companies involved, and the fact that the ###### knows a bit about insurance claims, she could have very easily paid 100% of the deductable.

But this is just my take, there are a lot of opinions in here. And I've only been a claims analyst for a few months

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by fotze

Maybe the fiancee is the one lying. How can you trust anyone who goes by the term fiancee. Its like Beyonce.

I agree with you, I don't like the term fiancee either...but what other term is there? Is there any synonym for fiancee?

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I agree with you, I don't like the term fiancee either...but what other term is there? Is there any synonym for fiancee?

Yes...

Judge, Jury and executioner

[jammies]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I agree with you, I don't like the term fiancee either...but what other term is there? Is there any synonym for fiancee?

"Betrothed" although technically a betrothal is more binding than an engagement, and also it sounds even worse than fiancee.

"I'd like you to meet my betrothed, Ezmerelda."

"Bahahaha he said 'betrothed'! What a maroon!"

[simmer2]

There has finally been a conclusion to this whole debaucle, unfortunately it's not overly positive. We are stuck paying 100% deductable...apparently State Farm (######'s insurance) wouldn't cough up the money. The only good thing is we won't get rated by our insurance company.

I now wish the H1N1 on this guy, I hope he craps and pukes for a week straight.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by simmer2

There has finally been a conclusion to this whole debaucle, unfortunately it's not overly positive. We are stuck paying 100% deductable...apparently State Farm (######'s insurance) wouldn't cough up the money. The only good thing is we won't get rated by our insurance company.

I now wish the H1N1 on this guy, I hope he craps and pukes for a week straight.

Maybe fred123r can answer this. Could you not still sue d-bag in small claims?

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by simmer2

There has finally been a conclusion to this whole debaucle, unfortunately it's not overly positive. We are stuck paying 100% deductable...apparently State Farm (######'s insurance) wouldn't cough up the money. The only good thing is we won't get rated by our insurance company.

I now wish the H1N1 on this guy, I hope he craps and pukes for a week straight.

The taking a dump on his property option is still available to you!

[Coach]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I agree with you, I don't like the term fiancee either...but what other term is there? Is there any synonym for fiancee?

Bride-to-be?

[simmer2]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

The taking a dump on his property option is still available to you!

Ya, I think I like this option best.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by troutman

Maybe fred123r can answer this. Could you not still sue d-bag in small claims?

If there is a settlement in place, you are stuck with it. You could issue a claim but the defendant would raise the settlement as a defence and you would be SOL.

However, if there is no settlement there is nothing stopping you from telling your insurer to step aside and let you handle the matter. You could then issue a claim naming the driver and the owner as defendants. Their own insurer would likely get involved and you would be dealing with them. You could also try explaining your plan to your own insurer before you tell them to take a hike and see if that helps them negotiate something.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by simmer2

I agree with you, I don't like the term fiancee either...but what other term is there? Is there any synonym for fiancee?

Housewoman.