I smell insurance fraud.

[mikester]

I was rear ended twice in 18 months. Man it sucks to have back trouble after such accidents when you've never had it before. Granted it is difficult to pin it specifically on the accident and not simply aging and not taking care of yourself but it is also hard not to pin it there.

I did some chiropractic and exercise and now all seems generally okay but I always live in a bit of fear that my back will go out. Man that hurts...

[Rick Lee]

I don't doubt at all that some of the car's occupants could have back or neck pain. But 30 min. after they all told me they were fine? C'mon! I dropped my motorcycle yesterday, landed on my feet, lifted it back up and rode off. My wrist is killing me today, but there was no pain at all for a good five hours after the incident. I don't believe you can just start feeling pain 30 min. after a hit. It's either immediate or several hours later. Had I looked like some poor bum in a hoopty with no insurance, I doubt they would have ever claimed any injury.

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I don't believe you can just start feeling pain 30 min. after a hit. It's either immediate or several hours later.

Not sure about that. I've been in a number of accidents - and I think the pain can start up just about any time. The reason you often don't notice it initially is the shock.

That said, I once rear-ended a couple under similar circumstances. They were new to the country, just got their licence, and he was driving very unpredictably.

After I hit him, he got out and we exchanged business cards. When the claim was made it was a whiplash claim for....drumroll.....SIX PEOPLE!!! This guy seriously claimed there were six people in the car (all relatives) and when I disputed this he claimed that I just hadn't seen the four in the back seat of his Camry!!!

It was my word against six - and the insurance settled. For all six!

[Rick Lee]

That leads to another question. Why do insurance companies always settle so easily, when it's so unlikely a claimant would bother with a lawyer to fight a denial for a dubious claim? Seems to me, putting up any kind of fight would not only save the insur. co. the payout, but might discourage more frivolous claims in the future. Look, if this guy is really hurt, then I want things made right, regardless of who's at fault legally or morally. But if his injury is directly proportional to my insur. coverage, then I'd like to see USAA put up a bit of a fight, both to protect themselves, me and future victims.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

That leads to another question. Why do insurance companies always settle so easily, when it's so unlikely a claimant would bother with a lawyer to fight a denial for a dubious claim? Seems to me, putting up any kind of fight would not only save the insur. co. the payout, but might discourage more frivolous claims in the future. Look, if this guy is really hurt, then I want things made right, regardless of who's at fault legally or morally. But if his injury is directly proportional to my insur. coverage, then I'd like to see USAA put up a bit of a fight, both to protect themselves, me and future victims.

My theory is that insurance company lawyers are in a way in cahoots with trial (plaintiff's) lawyers on this one: it is better for all lawyers if a precedent is never set so there is a chance any claim can go to trial--and lawyers on both sides are needed.

If a precedent is set, a claim can be denied, or paid, depending on the precedent with less chance of a legal challenge.

If no precedent is set, both side's lawyers still need to get involved, but nothing is decided that is applicable to other cases so the lawyers ALWAYS need to be involved.

I really think it is a case of lawyers looking out for themselves.

[MRM]

What makes you think USAA isn't putting up a fight? A bit hasty in passing judgment, aren't you? Give the passengers time to claim injury, sue you and USAA to select its litigation strategy. Then you can judge USAA's response.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by MRM

What makes you think USAA isn't putting up a fight? A bit hasty in passing judgment, aren't you? Give the passengers time to claim injury, sue you and USAA to select its litigation strategy. Then you can judge USAA's response.

Well, I'm just going on what my claims guy told me - "You have two vehicles with damage and a passenger claiming injury and unfortunately, you can expect a rate increase when your policy comes up for renewal in March." The fact that they did not record my statement on the phone pretty much means it's a done deal. The claims guy even said the injured guy's story sounds pretty fishy and they will audit any bill he submits. But as for my liability and USAA's writing some checks, that's a done deal.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

On my honeymoon last Thurs. I trashed my rental car in San Fran. when a very young and new driver panic braked inside an intersection and I rear-ended her....

Congratulations Rick! That really sux...I think the honeymoon must've slowed down your reaction time. Good luck on the outcome...(the accident and the marriage )!

[MRM]

They increase you rates because you were in a rear end accident. That has nothing to do with whether the company gets sued or decides to hire a defense lawyer. The underwriting decision was made on your rates the second the information that there was an accident hit the company.

They don't need to record your statement because the insurance company has access to you. They can call you and ask for clarification any time. Notes taken by the adjuster probably aren't discoverable. A recorded interview with you admitting to a rear end accident probably would be. I used to go balistic when Claims decided to record the insured's statement when we had a likely liability accident. Why do you want to go out of your way to create discoverable evidence that will do nothing but lock your insured into liability? You only record statements when you are afraid the story might change or be forgotten, you don't have access to the witness, or you're afraid the witness might disapear - and the information assists your position or is important for evaluating the claim.

The issue for your company, and any defense they make, is damages. Are the passengers really hurt? They were in a decent impact so they get a checkup and maybe a followup no matter what. Your company's on the hook for that. That's what you have insurance for. Whether they make an injury claim from there will tell the insurer how hard to defend.

[1fastredsc]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

That leads to another question. Why do insurance companies always settle so easily, when it's so unlikely a claimant would bother with a lawyer to fight a denial for a dubious claim?

I asked my insurance legal rep guy the same question, he said it's all about money. They'll make what they feel is a reasonable offer, if they don't take this offer and try to get more than an insurance rep who is familiar with the law will gage roughly how much they would have to pay in legal fees to fight it off as well as the possible settlement amount even after fighting it. If it's worth the effort and money, than they go to court, if not, then they settle whether it's right or wrong. Basically it costs money for them to defend themselves right or wrong, and sometimes it costs less just to shut them up.

[Rick Lee]

But surely, insurance companies must have lawyers on staff whom they pay well, but still far less than hiring an outside law firm. Paying some in-house lawyer $300k a year to save a few million over several cases seems like a no-brainer. Why would it cost so much to fight a case when you just have your in-house guy deal with it?

[Don Plumley]

"I got rear-ended in San Francisco" I've seen that t-shirt here before.

[carambola]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Well, I'm just going on what my claims guy told me - "You have two vehicles with damage and a passenger claiming injury and unfortunately, you can expect a rate increase when your policy comes up for renewal in March." The fact that they did not record my statement on the phone pretty much means it's a done deal. The claims guy even said the injured guy's story sounds pretty fishy and they will audit any bill he submits. But as for my liability and USAA's writing some checks, that's a done deal.

i'm surprised, most insurance companies "record this conversation for quality purposes"

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

But 30 min. after they all told me they were fine? C'mon!

No doubt that insurance scammers abound - however:

One rainy night years ago I t-boned a full sized, stop sign running station wagon in a Renault Le Car - totaled it. Cops arrived, asked if there was any injuries - I said I was fine as did the two in the station wagon.

Then two tow trucks arrived and started to hook up the cars. I approached the cop and said, "Hey, I haven't seen anybody take measurements or pictures!" (there were no witnesses and the other driver denied fault - I saw a problem developing).

Cop said "We don't do all that if there are no injuries - and it's raining". "Well I'm injured and as soon as my wife gets here she's taking me to the hospital to get checked out!" Cop says "You just told me you weren't injured!" "Well now I'm saying that I am - my neck and back hurt!" Cop was visibly irritated but called off the tow trucks and measurements and pics were taken.

I told the emergency room doc what happened and that I was feeling no pain but felt it was wise to get checked out. He said I'd done the right thing because seatbelts can cause internal bleeding and other damage not always immediately apparent.

Well, x-rays, etc., no damages so I went home to bed. Next morning couldn't get out of bed. A single diagonal shoulder strap allows the right half of the drivers torso to be thrown forward violently and I was in severe pain and ended up bed ridden for several days then having to have physical therapy for about a month. Yeah, I got a settlement!

Whiplash can manifest over a period of time also - if I were one of the passengers in the car you hit I'd surely have claimed injury and gone to the hospital just to get checked out and have a little documentation should an insurance co. try to deny a legitimate claim if injury isn't apparent until the next day.

Life's a btich - won't look out for you at all, gotta do it yourself.

[1fastredsc]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

But surely, insurance companies must have lawyers on staff whom they pay well, but still far less than hiring an outside law firm. Paying some in-house lawyer $300k a year to save a few million over several cases seems like a no-brainer. Why would it cost so much to fight a case when you just have your in-house guy deal with it?

What's cheaper, having to go through court costs, legal fees, plus your own in house research? Or just pay out a few thousand to shut them up? When it comes to legal costs 10-20k dollars is a drop in the bucket, so shutting them up for that amount or lower is in their best interest. Plus if you think about it, if the legal expert in the company says "yes we have a good chance, let's fight it" and they lose, he/she could lose there job.....

[Bary Mukalkiner]

That's the problem with running red lights; if the car in front of you stops, you hit it.

[Rick Lee]

What does this have to do with running red lights? The light was green when she entered the intersection. She panic braked when it turned yellow. It turned red long after I hit her.

[Bary Mukalkiner]

How could she see the light if she was in the intersection? Lights don't take that long to go from yellow to red. If you were following at a safe distance, it must have turned yellow before you entered the intersection, no?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Vegas is well-known for this kind of thing (maybe Tabs can vouch). The nature and layout of the city is such that there are very large, wide roads with long stretches between lights. This creates an incentive for people to run the lights because they don't feel like braking from 50 or 60 mph to sit there FOREVER. I work out of Vegas sometimes for our firm (we have a satellite office there) and I was told this on Day #1 - "locals count 'one-one thousand, two-one thousand , three-one thousand' before moving once the light turns green" for exactly this reason.

Another issue is that because of the long stretches between lights (and probably exacerbated by the fact that half the city is drunk at any given time), it's very easy to get rear-ended at a light because the next driver humming along fat dumb and happy doesn't "see" you. They might see you, but it doesn't register. It's not what they expect or want to see, so they plow into you. My boss was sitting at a light and had the guy right next to him get plowed into by a pizza delivery guy in this manner doing about 45-50. That'll get your attention from 5 feet away. Guy was messed up pretty good too (wasn't wearing a seat belt).

Point is, when sitting at a light without anyone behind you - ALWAYS pay attention to who's coming up behind you - and how quickly. Whether in Vegas or elsewhere. I learned this riding motorcycles.

[Rick Lee]

This happened in San Fran., but I have noticed it in LV too.