Insurance claim question in MD.
 

Who's dealt with the 1% contributory clause in MD accident law? A friend (yes, really) was hit on Dufief Mill in Gaithersburg. Police report says other driver, who was making a left turn, was at fault. But three witnesses said my friend, while not at fault, probably could have stopped in time, thereby making her at least 1% responsible. And by MD law, a 1% contributory factor means your own insurance pays. Her car is close to totalled and the at-fault driver's insurance (Nationwide) refuses to pay. My friend only has liability. So because someone else hit her, she's out of a car now. Since no one was injured (thank God), no lawyer will touch this, as there's just not enough money involved. So it's looking like small claims court now. But I'm wondering what else might work; like tough-worded letters or a call from a pitbull lawyer. When I called the at-fault driver's insurance adjuster, he got pretty snooty with me, so I guess that's a good sign. Now they know they're gonna have a fight on their hands, whereas before, my friend didn't think she had a chance, so she rolled over when they said no. So does anyone here have any experience with this 1% BS? Thanks.

What has her insurance company said about this? I would think they (and their lwayers) would take the lead on this, since it may mean they are responsible for paying the claim.

I know I am not responding to your real question (i.e., experience with the 1% rule), so I hope my posting does not prevent others with more specific knowledge from responding.

Her insur. co. has washed their hands of it, since she does not have collision coverage. Otherwise, yes, they would have taken care of it all. From my Internet research, it looks like MD/VA/DC all have this contributory negligence clause, which basically means if you contribute even 1% to the cause of an acciddent, you have no case against the guy who contributed 99% to the cause of the accident.

I bet if your company pays a claim your premium will go up much more than 1%. BTW, if no one is hurt, they are likely to want to pay off the claim as quickly as possible. If someone is hurt they will try and settle it even quicker and avoid legal costs down the road.

I bumped into a guy on the way to a redskins game. No dammage to either car although a cop stopped to make sure we were off the beltway and no one was hurt. The guy was not a professional, but was trying to get the cop to agree that I caused the previous dammage on his bumper.(Looked like verticle scratches made by sharp dog claws.) I didn't want to get on the cop's bad side so I asked my freind to go argue with the guy. The cop thought the other guy was trying to get something out of nothing, but wouldn't write a report. He made us exchange info.

Later I was notified by my insurance company that the guy was going to had filed for dammage, dr's bills and lost wages. They were going to pay him off. I objected and only when I wrote a letter with the word "fraud" in it did they start discussing that they would reject the claim. Luckily the guy caved in and nothing was ever paid. I saved my premium.

The insurance company will not even blink at paying a small claim. They will get you back by raising your rates!

I once ran over a bail of hay that fell off the truck in front of me. It screwed up the front end of my Piece of Sh ___ Ford Explorer.
I consulted with my agent and asked if my premium would go up if I claimed it. nHe said no. What he didn't tell me was that I would loose my good driver discount.

Lesson learned: You got to have insurance for the big stuff. Better to pay out of pocket for the small stuff.

The premium for collision on my 83 911 is peanuts as I'm sure the pay out would be if I wrecked it.

Sorry to hear about your friend, glad she is ok. I paid an attorney for an hours time for a previous traffic accident and the letter they wrote and the advice they gave me was well worth it. Might be worth it to talk to an attorney familar with MD traffic laws.

Of course it's too late now, but with laws like this I cant see having less then full coverage unless you are willing to walk away from your car.

Thanks guys. I'm going to recommend she get an atty. to write a letter for her, which may get Nationwide to bend. Repair est. is $4273 on a '97 Accord, which is probably worth $5500 max. Her first atty. dropped the case, but told me it wasn't because she didn't have a case, but rather because he had too many other high-dollar cases to deal with and was located in Ellicott City. When I talked with him, he encouraged me to get another lawyer locally. I think it comes down to whether the new atty. thinks the police report and/or the witnesses make my friend appear to be at all at fault. If so, then she has no case under MD law. Then it'd be just a crap shoot as to whether Nationwide feels like fighting or paying, since they'd probably win if it ever got to court. Not sure if they'd take me seriously were I to file a small claims suit.

Rick--

Unless the witnesses can give factual evidence indicating negligent behavior, their opinions on whether she could stop in time are worthless and inadmissible in court. They would have to cite specific conduct on her part, speeding, fixing her make-up, looking the wrong way, etc. indicative of negligence. They have no idea what the stopping distance is for her car or how road conditions affected that. The other guy would basically have had to be sitting in front of her for some time while she was a great distance away to infer she was negligent without more evidence. If a guy's sitting still in an intersection you can't just say he's negligent so I guess I'll run into him, but it doesn't sound like that's what happened here. Md like Va may have table of stopping distances in the state code which shows the average stopping distance at certain speeds, but even that is arguable because as we 911 drivers know, some cars stop quicker than others. In theory, almost every accident could be avoided. That doesn't mean both parties negligently caused it. If she was driving lawfully, she has the right to presume other drivers will do likewise.
Her biggest problem, as you seem to understand, is that she had no collision coverage. I'm sure if she did her insurance company would brush off the claim of contrib and go after the other company. She might want to file her own claim in court. The other guy's insurance company might offer her some money just to get rid of her, because they'll have to pay their lawyers to fight it.

A police report saying the other driver is at fault is pretty good. Depending on the circumstances, I'd take that over three "witnesses" saying she could have stopped in time. What does that mean anyway? Who are these "witnesses". What makes them able to judge stopping distances? What exactly did they see? How did they formulate their opinions? What training or expertise did they have to formulate this opinion? Is it just a "feeling" they might have? Did these witnesses talk to the police or did they appear later? If they talked to the police, then why didn't their opinions influence the report? Police can receive training for assessing speeds and stopping distances through simple "eyeballing" of a car from some distance away, but your average citizen does not have this training.

As for suing to collect, it will be hard to find a lawyer willing to take the case. It'll be a lot of work, time and expenses for the fee involved. Rule of thumb for many attorneys is they want a police report and an injury requiring medical treatment. She could file a suit pro se and represent herself. She'll have to be very sure of her position and politely unwilling to take no for an answer before going in front of a judge. Will the "witnesses" even show up in court? You can't represent her in court unless you're admitted to practice in MD. One avenue would be for her to consult a legal aid clinic.

Keep in mind that it is not unheard of for an insurance claims adjuster to deny an otherwise worthy claim based on conflicting opinion evidence. You're friend could have a valid callenge to the insurance carrier on this--especially with that police report on her side.

God, I f'ing hate insurance companies. 1% responsible :roll:.

Chris, who doesn't? But this is not their doing. It's state law and exists to supposedly cut down on lawsuits. Of course, insur. is gonna refuse to pay as soon as they think they can get away with it legally. And they can in this case. This law covers their asses. My friend should have had collision.