Wife got into a car accident - recommendations on owner/policy owner on replacement vehicle

Who is at fault on the accident?

davey_au wrote: ↑ Looking for advice. My wife got into a car accident last week and the car's a write-off. The adjuster just came back with the settlement amount.

My wife was the owner of the car, and she was the primary policy holder (I was the secondary). That was our only car.

Now we're in car shopping mode. But I was curious if anyone had an opinion on who should be the owner and primary policy holder on the new car. Does it make a difference if we shift everything to my name? Any insight would be appreciated.

Was she at fault? Do either of you have other faults/tickets? How old are you?

davey_au wrote: ↑ Looking for advice. My wife got into a car accident last week and the car's a write-off. The adjuster just came back with the settlement amount.

My wife was the owner of the car, and she was the primary policy holder (I was the secondary). That was our only car.

Now we're in car shopping mode. But I was curious if anyone had an opinion on who should be the owner and primary policy holder on the new car. Does it make a difference if we shift everything to my name? Any insight would be appreciated.

There's a whole insurance thread in here:
merged-ask-me-anything-about-insurance-415480/

You might want to check with your broker, or ask one of the brokers in that thread like @COSMIC5. I suspect that since you're both going to be on the policy, it won't really matter much, but I'm no expert, and I've never played an insurance broker on TV.

C

engineered wrote: ↑ Was she at fault? Do either of you have other faults/tickets? How old are you?

Partial fault. She got rear ended, but she ended up rear ending the car in front of her. We are in our 40’s.

She has 1 other not at fault claim 8 years ago. As for me, I have a clean record

davey_au wrote: ↑ Partial fault. She got rear ended, but she ended up rear ending the car in front of her.

That's a strange situation to be in, I've heard many instances people in the middle who are not at fault, as well as instances like this. Really should be the former given how physics works.

davey_au wrote: ↑ She has 1 other not at fault claim 8 years ago. As for me, I have a clean record

How many years have you been licensed and continuously insured?

I’m no expert, but how can she be partially at fault when she has no control what goes on behind her.

Maybe an expert can shed some light.

jzmtl wrote: ↑ That's a strange situation to be in, I've heard many instances people in the middle who are not at fault, as well as instances like this. Really should be the former given how physics works.

oceans_end wrote: ↑ I’m no expert, but how can she be partially at fault when she has no control what goes on behind her.

Maybe an expert can shed some light.

Look at sections 9 and 10 of Ontario's fault determination rules.

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900668

oceans_end wrote: ↑ I’m no expert, but how can she be partially at fault when she has no control what goes on behind her.

Maybe an expert can shed some light.

If you're stopped and get rear-ended which pushes you into the vehicle in front of you, you're not at fault, I believe. If you're moving and rear-ended and you rear-end someone else, you will be 50% responsible for the damage done to the vehicle ahead of you. You're responsible for leaving an appropriate distance between you and the vehicles in front of you while in motion.

C

most likely the accident will be rated with her as primary as most likely you will be using the same policy and just removing the old car and adding the new one.
A new insurer will most likely rate her as she was the one that was AF. If you can get her down to less than 25% at fault, then she won't be penalized for the accident.

davey_au wrote: ↑ Looking for advice. My wife got into a car accident last week and the car's a write-off. The adjuster just came back with the settlement amount.

My wife was the owner of the car, and she was the primary policy holder (I was the secondary). That was our only car.

Now we're in car shopping mode. But I was curious if anyone had an opinion on who should be the owner and primary policy holder on the new car. Does it make a difference if we shift everything to my name? Any insight would be appreciated.

True, my parents were stopped at a light when a kid driving a truck didn't stop and slammed into the back of them which pushed my parents into the vehicle infront of them. They were completely stopped, so 0% fault for them

CNeufeld wrote: ↑ If you're stopped and get rear-ended which pushes you into the vehicle in front of you, you're not at fault, I believe. If you're moving and rear-ended and you rear-end someone else, you will be 50% responsible for the damage done to the vehicle ahead of you. You're responsible for leaving an appropriate distance between you and the vehicles in front of you while in motion.

C

COSMIC5 wrote: ↑ most likely the accident will be rated with her as primary as most likely you will be using the same policy and just removing the old car and adding the new one.
A new insurer will most likely rate her as she was the one that was AF. If you can get her down to less than 25% at fault, then she won't be penalized for the accident.

Ok good advice. Maybe try to negotiate down to 25%. But yes planning to stay with the same insurer and just change the car.

CNeufeld wrote: ↑ If you're stopped and get rear-ended which pushes you into the vehicle in front of you, you're not at fault, I believe. If you're moving and rear-ended and you rear-end someone else, you will be 50% responsible for the damage done to the vehicle ahead of you. You're responsible for leaving an appropriate distance between you and the vehicles in front of you while in motion.

C

Still makes no sense, what's appropriate distance to stop my own car isn't going to be enough to stop when somebody plow into me at high speed and probably stun me for a split second before I can hit the brake and trying to stop now probably 2x the kinetic energy.

This scenario can actually be quite common, when traffic suddenly slow down to a crawl and some idiot plow into the slow moving but not stopped cars. And if it's a tractor trailer then you have 10+ people who now at fault and insurance skyrocket.

jzmtl wrote: ↑ Still makes no sense, what's appropriate distance to stop my own car isn't going to be enough to stop when somebody plow into me at high speed and probably stun me for a split second before I can hit the brake and trying to stop now probably 2x the kinetic energy.

This scenario can actually be quite common, when traffic suddenly slow down to a crawl and some idiot plow into the slow moving but not stopped cars. And if it's a tractor trailer then you have 10+ people who now at fault and insurance skyrocket.

Yeah it doesn't make sense to me either, but the likelihood of getting rear ended while moving is fairly low. Over the years I've been rear ended way too many times and only one of those has been when I was also moving (there was nothing in front of me to hit so didn't have to worry about any fault determination); all the rest were when I'd already been stopped whether it be for a second or for a longer period of time.

And you're right if a tractor trailer causes a pile-up like that a bunch of ppl (who were moving and to stopped) will be at fault, some even dead lol. But hey insurance and the gov't gotta make $$$ on this stuff so yeah

It makes sense if "car B" (the middle car) was following too closely, but otherwise if the vehicle doing the rear ending is massive enough or travelling at a high speed at impact (or both ) and that causes a vehicle that wasn't too close to hit the next one it shouldn't be their fault, but the rules are unfortunately not there to make sense but rather to make $$$.

An incident involving three or more automobiles that are travelling in the same direction and in the same lane (a “chain reaction”). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 9 (1). So how they determine the fault if Car B hit car A on the another lane due to the Impact by Car C.

raven0usvampire wrote: ↑ This is absolutely correct.

According to section 9 paragraph 3 and 4.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900668

Super. I think I might challenge that my wife was in a stop position (which she says she was).

davey_au wrote: ↑ Super. I think I might challenge that my wife was in a stop position (which she says she was).

No dash cam ?

If she was stopped then you need to make sure you tell them, however they may ask why you did not put it in the accident report (assuming you did not) if you did then you got proof and insurance should change it to not a fault.

Make sure you tell them you were stopped 100% and not slightly rolling or anything like that.

davey_au wrote: ↑ Super. I think I might challenge that my wife was in a stop position (which she says she was).