At fault/no fault can you appeal to the insurance company?

[hammer]

I was driving an old subaru when the engine hesitated in the middle of an intersection causing another car to swerve and hit me from the side/behind corner of the car. That car was really speeding and hence had no time to stop.

I was ticketed for fail to yield right of way but was aquitted as I told the judge that the my engine hesitated being a 20 year old car.


I told the insurance company but they seem to be firm about keeping my insurance high.

[Shaner]

It was your fault, so I don't see how you expect to change that.
You entered into an intersection when it obviously wasn't safe to do so. Even if the other guy was speeding, you need to realize that and time your turn accordingly.
You should have given enough time that your engine could hesitate and you'd still be able to make it through the intersection safely.

[thelefteyeguy]

but you were deemed at fault...

[dark169]

what the courts find and what your insurance company do are not connected. If your insurance company had to pay the other guys damages its done and you pay higher rates.

[hammer]

It was your fault, so I don't see how you expect to change that.
You entered into an intersection when it obviously wasn't safe to do so. Even if the other guy was speeding, you need to realize that and time your turn accordingly.
You should have given enough time that your engine could hesitate and you'd still be able to make it through the intersection safely.

I guess I have a problem understanding the fact that a mechanical failure can act as an AT FAULT item. It seems that the judge understands at least.

[Bullseye]

Several issues here;

-mechanical issues are not an excuse, if your car is not fit and safe for the road, you shouldn't be driving it. Surprised the courts were so lenient, you were lucky.

-if someone hit you from behind, they were following too closely, regardless of my above comment. You shouldn't have been charged with anything, they should have been charged with following too closely.

-your insurer assesses fault or no fault for insurance purposes. They base it on their own criteria, but the police report is key. If your case was aquitted, you should have a good argument to have the at fault removed.

It seems to me that some info must be missing here, the story doesn't add up as is.

[DragonZealot]

I was driving an old subaru when the engine hesitated in the middle of an intersection causing another car to swerve and hit me from the side/behind corner of the car. That car was really speeding and hence had no time to stop.

I was ticketed for fail to yield right of way but was aquitted as I told the judge that the my engine hesitated being a 20 year old car.


I told the insurance company but they seem to be firm about keeping my insurance high.

No need ot appeal, you do not have a case. The other guy was not at fault because he had the right of way. You have no proof that he was speeding. Since he is not at fault you are at fault. Insurance rule #1 said someone must be at fault.

Normally if only 1 party gets a ticket the party that gets the ticket is 100% at fault. Whether it gets convicted does not matter.

Don't get angry with me I just telling you how the insurance industry operates. It may not sound reasonable to you but this is how they run their business.

Edit: It is likely that the hesitation problem existed in your car for a little while and you did not seek resolution to it. If this is the case you deserve the outcome of this. If this is not the case I feel sorry for you being unfortunate.

[DragonZealot]

I guess I have a problem understanding the fact that a mechanical failure can act as an AT FAULT item. It seems that the judge understands at least.

If your brake failed and rear ended into someone you are still 100% at fault. You may not get a ticket. Insurance only look at "what happed" they do not look at what caused it to happen.

[hammer]

Several issues here;

-mechanical issues are not an excuse, if your car is not fit and safe for the road, you shouldn't be driving it. Surprised the courts were so lenient, you were lucky.

-if someone hit you from behind, they were following too closely, regardless of my above comment. You shouldn't have been charged with anything, they should have been charged with following too closely.

-your insurer assesses fault or no fault for insurance purposes. They base it on their own criteria, but the police report is key. If your case was aquitted, you should have a good argument to have the at fault removed.

It seems to me that some info must be missing here, the story doesn't add up as is.

The other car hit me from behind/corner coming from east, I was going north.

The funny thing is that they have NO FAULT on the ministry computer (or whatever computer that they connect to) but has AT FAULT on the letter of Experience. So I know that at least the insurance thought it was NO FAULT at the begining of this ordeal.

[Bullseye]

No need ot appeal, you do not have a case. The other guy was not at fault because he had the right of way. You have no proof that he was speeding. Since he is not at fault you are at fault. Insurance rule #1 said someone must be at fault.

Normally if only 1 party gets a ticket the party that gets the ticket is 100% at fault. Whether it gets convicted does not matter.

Don't get angry with me I just telling you how the insurance industry operates. It may not sound reasonable to you but this is how they run their business.

If someone rear ends you, it means that they were not leaving sufficient space to allow stopping. Rear endings are the rear enders fault 99% of the time. Doesn't matter that he hesitated, the law requires that you leave adequate space to stop.

And yes, whether you are convicted or not DOES matter to insurance, but you sometimes have to fight them on it.

[thelefteyeguy]

this is not a rear end accident...his description is faulty.

first of he use the term "intersection"

hit his side/behind corner of the car...meaning "SIDE"

lastly "The other car hit me from behind/corner coming from east, I was going north"

meaning he was making a left turn

[deep]

Whether or not you are convicted makes a difference, but people need to keep in mind that there is no such thing as no-fault insurance. It's a BS name invented by the industry. EVERY accident has someone at fault in the eyes of insurance, even if the police say there was no fault.

[DragonZealot]

this is not a rear end accident...his description is faulty.

first of he use the term "intersection"

hit his side/behind corner of the car...meaning "SIDE"

lastly "The other car hit me from behind/corner coming from east, I was going north"

meaning he was making a left turn

Nobody said this is a rear ended accident. Actually if the OP got hit from the rear he is 100% NOT at fault and he would not be complaining.

Both cars are travelling straight, one going north the other going east. The other car hit the OP from the side near the rear of the car.

[DragonZealot]

Whether or not you are convicted makes a difference,

It does NOT make a difference for the purpose of determining who is at fault for insurance purpose.

there is no such thing as no-fault insurance.

In very insurance policy there is a coverage called "Accident Benefits", this is the part where no-fault insurance comes in.

[dtcanada]

I guess I have a problem understanding the fact that a mechanical failure can act as an AT FAULT item. It seems that the judge understands at least.

Your insurance remains high for a lot of reason...and one of the main reason i can think of is the fact that you still drive that piece of junk that you called a car...if it failed once...what gonna stop them from failing again? the insurance have to consider that factor too...there is a very high chance of that happens again...and your insurance might have to pay for that AGAIN...so they have to steal your money now to pay for their losses later...so it's not just YOU...it's also the CAR...