Auto and Car Insurance

we were in a auto accident the other persons insurance is allstate they say we are 15% liable?

we had a green light going straight in the slow lane.the other driver was turning coming form the other direction.allstate said we are at fault for 15% because we should of been able to stop.Itold them that she had to yeild the right away.they replied that we didn't have our vehicle under controll. has anyone ever heard of such a thing ? should we get a lawyer ? by the way no one was hurt my husband was driving and slammed on the brakes to try to avoid the accident but he couldn't stop and there was no place to go

Public Comments

1. Failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident. Just because you have the right of way does not mean its ok to proceed. As you have discovered there are boneheads out there that forget about having to yield. It would be a valid ticket if you both got one.
2. Obviously you are in a comparative negligence state, and they can apply a % of negligence to you if the evidence supports that the negligent act contributed. If they have proof that you failed to do something, and that failure to do it contributed to the accident, then they are within their right to handle it this way. I will say this- 15% seems a bit high if you had the right of way and were proceeding with a green light. You can negotiate this, you don't have to accept it. You can appeal to the supervisor, and you can complain higher than that. Did you admit to being out of control, failing to take evasive action, etc? If not, then they are grasping. I would check into the laws of your state to determine if there is an unfair claims practice act. If there is, some of them say it is an unfair claims practice to apply negligence to someone to reduce the payment when there is no evidence of negligence. I can't guarantee your success with them because first of all, comparative negligence is the law of that state, they are within their right to apply it if the evidence supports them, and secondly, they may not be willing to change their mind even if you do all of the above. Claims differ in all states and by companies, and each case is different. Your other option is an Insurance Dept. Complaint or filing with your own carrier or filing suit.
3. It is a common practice for insurance companies to only accept partial fault in certain situations. Your best bet is to either let your insurance company handle the repairs and then they will go after Allstate later or get a lawyer. Contact your insurance company before you do anything else and see what they say. Good luck.
4. Welcome to the world of comparative negligence. Like Chris said, 15% sounds a tad high but we haven't heard the OTHER side of the story here. As far as hiring a lawyer, save your money. Allstate has dozens of them standing by and you will only end up paying him/her idiotic expenses.
5. That may or may not be true but what insurance company you have has no bearing on % fault.
6. That is pretty typical of that company to do that.... go through your own company & have them subrogate the whole claim! If your husband slammed on the brakes & tried to avoid, but the moron turned directly in your path, Allstate is smoking something.... Your company can take them to arbitration- you don't need a lawyer for that, it is completely no charge to you.
7. When comparative negligence was adopted, three main versions were used. The first was called "pure" comparative negligence. A plaintiff who was, say, 90% to blame for an accident could recover 10% of his losses. (Of course, the defendant in such a case could recover 90% of his losses from the plaintiff.) The second and third versions are lumped together in what is called "modified" comparative negligence. One variant allow plaintiffs to recover only if the plaintiff's negligence is "not greater than" the defendant's (viz., the plaintiff's negligence must be less than 51% of the combined negligence of both parties). The other variant allows plaintiff's to recover only if the plaintiff's negligence is "not as great as" the defendant's (viz., the plaintiff's negligence must be less than 50% of the combined negligence). The apparently minor difference between the two modified forms of comparative negligence are thought by lawyers handling such cases to be significant in that juries who ordinarily assign degrees of fault are much less willing to award damages to a plaintiff who is equally at fault than to one who is less at fault than the defendant. Depending on what state you live in they will use one of the above methodologies to figure your "% at fault". Remember, though, that it is a claims adjusters job to save the company as much money as possible. So, they may low ball you & you will have to negotiate to get the fair price. Ron @ InsureMe http://www.insureme.com/landing.aspx?Refby=614996&Type=auto