Most states have a law that requires the accident be reported with a certain time frame if the property damage exceeds a certain amount. You will probably find that you are breaking the law by not reporting the accident. I tried to be 'nice' one time and ended up being stronged armed by the girls Wisconsin state police father. Going to get me in trouble for not reporting the accident. Told him to go F himself and I was reporting his daughter for hit and run, and him for abuse of power. He forked over the cash after that but it was a hassel. As you are going down this path, give dad one chance to cash up, then report the accident if he doesn't.

 

Of the four jurisdictions we handle in my office (WV, DE, MD, DC), the shortest statute of limitations for filing a claim is 3 years and there's no stipulation regarding the amount of damage. Just yesterday, I had a new claim for an accident that happened in 2005.

Probably not an issue here, but it does raise some questions when a claim is not reported within the first 48 hours.

 

Please tell me you had the father sign an admission of guilt and negligence in the accident. In the event he decides not to pay, at least you have a document, preferrably in his own handwriting, showing that he was in fact responsible for the accident.

Personally, I would have called the cops. but then again, I'm a *****

 

Yes, it's usually the rear-enders fault, as opposed to the rear-end"ee". However, the person that hit my husband had allowed his insurance to lapse...so, our insurance company paid out the claim and will go after the guy by legal means.

There are exceptions to the rule that it's "always" the fault of the person who rear ended you. For example, when someone intentionally slams on their brakes for no reason (i.e., trying to cause an accident). Fortunately, in the past several years, California has implemented laws that address this and release the true victim from liability. No clue how things like this are handled in other states.

 

There is also the argument that if the 14 year old kid was not in the car then the accident could have been avoided. I had a friend that got rear ended after leaving a bar even though the person did rear end him he did blow right at the limit and was hit with DUI and the fault of the accident so you never know.

 

I would have called the cops before I even got out of the car.

I can't believe you didn't. No license, no insurance, underage, hit and run.... OMFG these people need to be punished! It's not being nice to let people get away with blatant crimes.

I really hope it works for you, but I would not have handled it that way. It's not a good idea to trust people who already broke countless laws.

 

I agree...I would have called the cops before I was outta the car. This kid broke like 15 laws in this whole fiasco and his dad is doing him no favors by "protecting" him.

In the situation you're in now, I'd be letting the dad know he has like 48 hours after you get the estimate to pay up or you'll be calling the police.

 

Sorry... has NOTHING to do with fault in the accident. That's a matter for the police to handle, not the insurance company. Let's say a 12-year old steals a car and is hit by a car that runs a red light. The car that ran the red light is still at-fault but the 12-year old and the parents face some issues with the police.

Your friend with the DUI conviction... there's more to that story you don't know or you're not telling us.

 

Most states have implemented this ruling into their traffic code manuals.

The problem is, the person who slammed on their brakes in a case of road rage is rarely going to admit they did it on purpose. Without their admission, it's very difficult to prove.

We recently lost a court case where the witness heard the brake-slammer say, "That'll teach you, you ____ __ _ ______ !". Court ruling: There was no connection between his statement and him stopping his vehicle suddenly. Circumstantial evidence.

 

I dunno, my aunt was involved in a car accident a while back that was her fault, she went late on a light that turned red, and another car went through a green full speed and hit her. The guy had a "failure to appear" in court on his record, and because of it, was not supposed to be driving. That guy had to pay for all damages, including some medical expenses on my aunt's behalf.

 

Again, a second-hand story that is leaving out a lot of details.

It's hard for most people to comprehend just how much work goes into some liability decisions. Where was she when the light turned red ? Did the other driver have the legal duty to allow her to clear the intersection before proceeding ? Etc, etc, etc.....

I assure you, the guy's "failure to appear" for a previous violation had NO bearing on the determination of negligence in this accident. And if it did, please tell me what State that was in so I never request a transfer there ! :impatient

 

Sorry to say, but unless there is a police report, your avenues of recourse become very limited. Now you have to hope you werent conned by the father.

I would have called the cops right away, but I understand that you were trying to be a good guy... been there, done that, got the burn marks.

It's correct that the general rule is that the person doing the rear ending is generally at fault...generally, not always. You're not at fault for rear ending someone who is doing something illegal and puts you in an impossible position. As I read your story, it sounds like he may have changed lanes in the intersection, this is an illegal maneuver that directly lead to your accident. He also fled the scene of the accident. In many states, fleeing the scene establishes fault.

I hope you're never in this situation again, but if you are -- protect yourself, call the cops.

 

Another falsehood in this thread. :impatient

Why are so many of you trying to give advice when you're not equipped to do so ?

60 % of the claims I handle have NO police report. The lack of a police report has absolutely no bearing on how the liability decision plays out. Geez, there are many times police are called about an accident and they don't even come out to the scene to do a report because there are no injuries.

And if there IS a police report, we use it to help us with the liability decision but there are plenty of times when the officer puts blame on one party but we rule in that party's favor. Even the police are not experts on accident liability. Often they make a snap judgment based on one party's version of the accident. Unlike the claims professionals who may spend up to a month and a half gathering all the necessary evidence.

And the rest of your reply contains so many half-truths, I wouldn't know where to start.

 

Keep in mind with all this, the OP is around 17 yrs old, based on his other postings.

 

^ Another good reason not to feed him a bunch of untruths.

I think the next person to type a reply that misleads the young man is going to get a trip out to the woodshed with me !!!

Can you tell I'm loosing my patience (hard to do). But at least I keep my sense of humor (it's critical in life).

 

If you re-read that, I said "limited". I didn't say he had no recourse. You even said it helps the insurance company, so why are you against it? Try not to be in such a hurry (impatient?) to be right about everything. Maybe it varies from state to state and insurance comany to insurance company. I got burned for not having a police report in the past. My legally parked car was hit, later he refused to pay. Police said that since it was after the fact, there was no proof he was the party that hit my car, etc etc. I'm sure if he gave me his insurance info, his insurance company would have just took my word for it.

Oh yea, I forgot about the "experts" behind the desk. These self-proclaimed, never-on-the-scene experts are a big reason why our medical industry is screwed up. It's not that they know more than the professional in the field, its that they have the power ($$) to make themselves right. The police are unbiased professionals trained to examine the scene of an accident. On the other hand, claims professionals are not unbiased, their job is to keep the money in the insurance company's pocket. Sure, they pay when they have to, but if there's a way to not have to pay, you can be sure they'll find it.

Anyway, my main point (big picture) is to get a police report... it helps to protect you. Surely, you're not advising against calling the police?

 

Take me to the woodshed sweetheart!

 

I really don't have time for this so I'll make try to make it quick:

The pr does not limit his recourses AT ALL.

I'm not against a PR, I'm just correcting your mistruth.

Rules DO vary from state to state when it comes to insurance regulations. But I work in more jurisdictions that just about any claim rep you can find, due to my location. And I've been to formal claim rep school where we learn standard rules.

In your example... who cares what the police officer said ? We're talking about a claim question, not a legal matter.

Your second to last paragraph sounds like it was written by someone who once was held responsible for an accident and has an axe to grind.

In actuality, we treat our third part claimants just as well as our insureds because they are potentially future customers.

Please stop spreading mistruths about insurance when you obviously have no basis of knowledge.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

 

Nope, for once you're wrong. I have never been in an accident, not as a driver, not as a passenger. I'm sure you're a great claims adjuster, but you make a poor psycho-analyst.

You're right about one thing tho. Its a claims ($$) matter, not legal. Its a shame that a police officer's expertise is so easily discounted.

No axe to grind, you're just amusing. Can we go to the woodshed now?

 

Gonzo, If you look back at your initial post and read it again, I think you'll agree that you were misleading the thread's author.

All I'm trying to do is make sure he gets good info so he doesn't make a poor decision.

And no, I'm not saying a police officer's judgment is easily discounted. You didn't read what I wrote with an open mind if that's what you took from it.

Whether or not you were "wronged" by an insurance company in the past, you have some deep-seated mistrust of them. But hey, we're a step above used car salesmen and lawyers, right ? RIGHT ?

 

my dad says cops can't get involved becuase I hit him from behind so he's protecting me just as the mans son is too him and we filed a claim so the man is going to reinburse us on the amount of the damage. so it's like double jeopardy...... I love how life works...

 

Hope you don't get screwed over.

I would've called the police. You hit him in the rear & he ran? We know whose fault it was. Now you don't have a leg to stand on. Good luck.

 

Very sound advice.

 

I am glad you were not hurt, but you should really file a police report, document everything and contact you insurance agent... just in case.