OK, this sucks. So, I was hit by a car while biking two weeks ago. T-boned, rolled onto the hood of the car, smashed the windshield with my back, landed in front of the car, and got up and walked away. The car had to be towed. I had been at a crosswalk where a bike path crossed a busy intersection, had stopped and waited for traffic to abate, and then started across when a car stopped for me. There were several cars behind her that stopped and I did not see anyone coming in either the second lane, or in the two opposing lanes. So I proceeded, albeit slowly as I was continually checking the other direction for cars. Then I caught something out of the corner of my eye and WHAM!
Anyways, the SafeCo insurance people accepted liability today and said that yes their driver was to blame (which the driver and her family also had admitted at the scene). BUT, they're trying to stick me with 20% of the bill. Why? For the simple fact that I was there on a bike. They claim that I didn't take due precaution in crossing, even though I told them in a statement that I stopped, and only went when I did not see any cars approaching. I was certain that the lane was free of cars when I entered into it. I would not have proceeded into the lane if I wasn't sure! Also, they deduced from my statement (although this was never explicitly or implicitly stated) that I was hit when I was just entering the lane, and not halfway across the lane, as I was (and as the facts are pretty clear about: if I was just going into the lane with almost no forward momentum, how did I smash the windshield?). I pointed this out and offered to sign an affidavit to that effect (which they said was not necessary) and given that, would reconsider and will get back to me later next week with a possible readjustment...
Other pertinent info: the driver had no license, just a permit and no one else in the car; in Oregon, it states very clearly in the driver's handbook (http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf) (p. 74) "Do not pass a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk." I think a citation was given for the first, but not second infraction.
I am assuming that this is SOP for insurance companies, but what I'm wondering is how to fight back and make them give me what is due (which could add up to $1000 with medical bills and all) -- apart from what I have done so far in pointing out additional facts to the insurance adjuster. Of course this might all be moot once they examine the pictures of the car, but I want to be prepared to do whatever it takes to clear my name and any hint of guilt on my part. In case you can't tell, I feel very strongly that I am not to blame at all for this and took all precautions that I could have short of a) not leaving the house that morning, b) walking my bike across the intersection, or c) driving an SUV like a bat out of hell into the woman's Geo Prism (thank god it was a small car that hit me).
Oh and I am not looking for legal advice, just anecdotal stuff will suffice. I am already planning on getting copies of witness statements and pictures of the car (especially of impact points on the front bumper and of the windshield (for posterity)).
Thanks.
thechrisproject
02-05-05, 03:32 AM
Just to get this straight: There were two lanes going one direction and the people in one lane stopped but someone else came through the other lane and hit you?
Dahon.Steve
02-05-05, 07:26 AM
Other pertinent info: the driver had no license, just a permit and no one else in the car; .
Case closed.
The driver had no license, he shouldn't have been driving.
You need a lawyer fast. The insurance company is looking for money any way they can get and they know the motorist was wrong. I'm surprised they are not offering a cash settlement.
Folks. This is what happens when you don't call the police after an accident. If they were called, the officer would have made a report and put the blame on the motorist. With that report, the insurance company would be writing a check for several thousand dollars instead of asking YOU for money.
Find out if there is legal aid in your city.
2manybikes
02-05-05, 07:41 AM
Case closed.
The driver had no license, he shouldn't have been driving.
You need a lawyer fast. The insurance company is looking for money any way they can get and they know the motorist was wrong. I'm surprised they are not offering a cash settlement.
Folks. This is what happens when you don't call the police after an accident. If they were called, the officer would have made a report and put the blame on the motorist. With that report, the insurance company would be writing a check for several thousand dollars instead of asking YOU for money.
Find out if there is legal aid in your city.
THE best option. Lawyer up, NOW! It's about the better negotiator, not the facts. REALLY !!
perbert
02-05-05, 10:05 AM
Well, the police were called. But in Oregon it's standard to not write up a report, just issue a traffic information exchange with the pertinant information, from what I understand. However, I will contact the officer who was at the scene and see what needs to happen to have a report filed.
thechrisproject: that is exactly what happened.
Anyways, I have time on my side, so I can wait this out until I get it my way.
brokenrobot
02-05-05, 10:24 AM
Yep. Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer. Especially before you sign any kind of affadavit. Your medical costs could be ongoing for some time... be certain you're covered!
steveknight
02-05-05, 12:39 PM
I doubt you need a lawyer as just the threat of it will be enough. aslk them do they want to pay what you want npw or do you want to pay far more if I take you to coart? that will usualy take care of it. since you have proof you were not at fault and the driver should not have been driving.
they hsould be waving a check at you soon. they are just trying to bluff you.
closetbiker
02-05-05, 12:48 PM
A lawyer will only usually take a case if he can make money from it and that usually means you have to have had a serious injury. How badly were you hurt?
If the accident involved two lanes going one direction and the people in one lane stopped but someone else came through the other lane and hit you, I would think there is a question of a small percentage of fault lying with you as it may have been reasonable for you to do this basic check before crossing the path of the vehicle that was mostly responsible for the collision. A reduction of your award would be expected in relation to what you could have done to prevent the collision.
20%, 10% reduction? That's the question.
blwyn
02-05-05, 05:49 PM
It would only be unusual if the insurance company didn't try to low ball you first. Stick to your guns, their offer will come up. Since it sounds like you have already made a statement to them, don't bother with a lawyer now. Only use one if all negotiation avenues with them have been exhausted (although I won't hesitate to use the threat of going to a lawyer during the negotiations).
John E
02-05-05, 06:12 PM
In California, if traffic in one lane stops for a pedestrian, traffic in the other lane is REQUIRED to stop, as well. I assume Oregon law is similar. You do not necessarily need a lawyer, but you need to be persistent and politely assertive to protect your rights and your finances. Get well-versed on all relevant laws, including those governing drivers with instruction permits (but no instructor in the vehicle!). Knowledge is power!
gpsblake
02-05-05, 08:46 PM
Anyways, the SafeCo insurance people accepted liability today and said that yes their driver was to blame (which the driver and her family also had admitted at the scene)......
Other pertinent info: the driver had no license, just a permit and no one else in the car
Get a lawyer. Your statement above conflicts itself. And how could this driver be insured? You claimed that no one else was in the car but yet the her family admitted fault on the scene. Get my drift????
Get a lawyer.
perbert
02-05-05, 09:04 PM
Get a lawyer. Your statement above conflicts itself. And how could this driver be insured? You claimed that no one else was in the car but yet the her family admitted fault on the scene. Get my drift????
Get a lawyer.
No, I don't get your drift. And don't assume things. Her family showed up after the fact. She had a permit, not a license and the car was owned by her husband or son or whoever. They had insurance. That's how it works in most states (or at least in Oregon, which is all that matters here): if someone else is driving a car that is insured and they have permission, they are covered.
perbert
02-05-05, 09:09 PM
In California, if traffic in one lane stops for a pedestrian, traffic in the other lane is REQUIRED to stop, as well. I assume Oregon law is similar. You do not necessarily need a lawyer, but you need to be persistent and politely assertive to protect your rights and your finances. Get well-versed on all relevant laws, including those governing drivers with instruction permits (but no instructor in the vehicle!). Knowledge is power!
That's how it is here, as well. And that's pretty much the direction I am leaning towards: just knowing everything I can (I have alrady spoken to two lawyers off the cuff, but the conversations both started with "Well, this is not my area of expertise, but if I were in that situation I would do this...".) and holding out until things go my way. I am not above calling the claims adjuster daily until she gets fed up and decides it's not worth her time.
Bekologist
02-05-05, 09:14 PM
You should get a lawyer. Don't sign anything, don't talk to the insurance company anymore, and get a lawyer to file for damages against the driver. And they weren't even a liscensed driver? That driver is at fault wasn't legally driving, and they hit you.
Get a lawyer. And, STOP TALKING to their insurance company.
snowy
02-05-05, 09:16 PM
YES, Call a Personal Injury Attorney ASAP!!! Don't make any agreements with other side just inform them that you are seeking counsel and that your attorney will contact them.
closetbiker
02-05-05, 09:19 PM
Many lawyers have a free consultation visit and they may be able to tell you if they'll take the case.
Like I said, unless you've been seriously hurt and can get a minimum $10,000, they may not feel it's worth their time for their 30% fee.
Dchiefransom
02-06-05, 08:57 AM
To me, a bike path is totally separate from the road. A bike lane is painted on the road. There was also a crosswalk next to the path? It would be good to check your state laws to see if you can ride across a street where a bike path crosses, or if you are supposed to dismount and walk. I'm visualizing the Iron Horse Trail here in NorCal, and how it crosses streets and roads. There is a crosswalk for everyone, but it's a MUT.
What happened to you is one of the most dangerous maneuvers for a cyclist or pedestrian. Whenever one car stops, I wouldbe betting the other won't. Stick to your guns. I've always thought that the only people that should determine whom is at fault are the legal authorities, and insurance companies should pay up and keep their traps shut. Sometimes it seems they refuse to pay even if it's blatantly their client's fault.
closetbiker
02-06-05, 09:16 AM
I've always thought that the only people that should determine whom is at fault are the legal authorities, and insurance companies should pay up and keep their traps shut. Sometimes it seems they refuse to pay even if it's blatantly their client's fault.
Everybody has to answer to the courts. They decide. Insurance companies just try to look after their intrests as best they can and that usually means paying out less in claims if they can arrange it.
The trouble comes when the difference between what you're entitled to vs. what you are offered is unrealistic to what has been previously established in court as being fair.