Insurance liability scenario

[alpine1]

Is there anyone here in the insurance or law enforcement profession? I have a general question concerning car accidents and at fault.

Suppose there is a 4 car pile up on the freeway. Car A gets hit by car B. Car B gets hit by car C. Car C gets hit by Car D. Who is normally at fault in this case? Is there ever a case where D is responsible for all A, B, and C?

[allsighs]

i usually regret divulging this due to the hatred i usually receive for it, but i have worked investigating insurance claims for about 7 years. Currently i work mostly investigating fraud, but did my time in the trenches.

As for your scenario, it depends on the sequence of impacts. If D hit C, causing C to be pushed into B, which was then pushed into A...then yes, D is responsible for all A B and C. If any of the vehicles in front of him had collided with the vehicle in front of them prior to D hitting C (such as B hitting A, then D hit C into B which is then pushed into A again), then the liability gets tricky as to the vehicles that were hit multiple times. Regardless of which, you will still have an "at fault accident" for D since he hit C. The fact that B and A got hit too just make the claim larger and hopefully all the damage/injuries still fall within the limits of the policy.

Best of luck. If this is for you, sorry to hear about the accident. Just remember, though you will find much frustration in insurance companies (hell, i do), we are not all bad.

[alpine1]

Not me thankfully. It was a story on the news my spouse and I were discussing.

I believe the case was B initially hitting A, followed by C hitting B, and finally D hitting C. Would A ever file a claim against D when the accident was between A and B? How about B and C?

[elite]

No legal knowledge...

I believe A would claim from B, B from C, and C from D

A number of years ago I was in a car (I wan't driving) that stopped at lights behind a taxi, the car behind failed to notice the traffic was stationary and ploughed into the back of us, pushing us into the back of the taxi.

The taxi driver claimed from the driver of the car I was in, the driver of the car I was in claimed for both damage to his car and the taxi from the car that rear-ended us

[SuMo]

Funny to see that the legal system has so much in common in different countries, maybe one point that could be different.

Here in Holland, a small but also big difference is if you have come to a complete stop before the accident.
I had a similar accident, where I was waiting for a red trafficlight (car A), the car behind me had come to a complete stop (car B) and the car behind that couldn't stop in time because of a wet road (car C). C hit B, B hit A. All claimes were made at the driver of car C and were granted.

[allsighs]

Yah everything comes down to whether someone hit another on their own or if they were pushed into them by another vehicle. In the case of the latter, it is the vehicle that started the whole thing that will bear the full liability of things. However, if A rearended B, then C hit A, pushing it back into B, then B's claim would be against both A and C, most likely each picking up 50% of the damages.

Trust me. It gets stupid. Every investigation is based on what people say. You are lucky if you can get any solid objective evidence on the complex accidents. People lie and that is what gets people screwed in insurance claims.

BTW, you wanna know how bad it can get, 3 years ago i had a claim that was a part of a 121 car pile up in Los Angeles. Unprecidented fog that morning that we dont ever get. people just kept hitting people for like 20 min. Many of those claims are still going on.

[Ted the Penguin]

BTW, you wanna know how bad it can get, 3 years ago i had a claim that was a part of a 121 car pile up in Los Angeles. Unprecidented fog that morning that we dont ever get. people just kept hitting people for like 20 min. Many of those claims are still going on.

:eek:


so, you arent quite "the narrator" from fight club yet? (yes I know he didnt work for an insurance company, but it made me think of it)
Cost per failure A times rate of failure B times number of these cars on the road C, A x B x C = X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we dont issue one.

[fender]

it also depends on where you live.

Here in British Columbia (Canada) we basically have a communist (state required/run) insurance agency. It's your only choice. They do your licensing, road tests, and sell you your insurance. It pretty much puts everyone 50% at-fault in the case of accidents.

As always your best bet is to avoid accidents.

[alpine1]

it also depends on where you live.

Here in British Columbia (Canada) we basically have a communist (state required/run) insurance agency. It's your only choice. They do your licensing, road tests, and sell you your insurance. It pretty much puts everyone 50% at-fault in the case of accidents.

As always your best bet is to avoid accidents.

50/50 isn't always a bad thing. It would certainly help with all the frivolous lawsuits that is going around here in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case