Car Accident Insurance Liability

A guide to Car Insurance, and Auto Accident Liability Insurance Coverage, covering Strict Liability, Negligence, Intentional Misconduct, "Fault," No Fault," and other aspects of Car Insurance relevant to Car Accidents.

Dos and Donts of Insurance Claims · Comparative Negligence vs Contributory Negligence · No Fault vs Fault Liability Insurance · Strict Liability · Special Situations · Proximate and Intervening Causes · Negligent Entrustment

Dos and Donts of Insurance Claims

If you have been involved in a car accident, you will have to deal with your insurance company as well as the insurance agents of others involved in the accident. Filing an insurance claim and speaking to insurance adjusters can be daunting. Here are some important do's and don’ts to remember:

DO:
Consult a car accident lawyer for legal advice Notify your insurance company immiediately if you are involved in a car accident Take notes when you speak with your insurance company, including a list of the names, job titles and phone numbers of the representatives you speak with Be completely honest with the insurance company. If you fail to do so, it could invalidate or reduce your coverage. Review your insurance policy to find out what is covered and what is excluded Find out if you have additional insurance coverage from another auto insurance policy, a homeowner’s policy, or umbrella coverage Save the receipts for rental cars, medical bills, and any other purchases made as a result of the car accident

DON'T:
Admit to any liability on your part; simply relate the facts without expressing any opinion Accept the insurance company’s estimate of your losses and damages until you have done some calculation on your own or with the help of a lawyer Let the time limit to file your insurance claim run out Give the insurance company a recorded or written statement if you do not understand any part of your policy or claim Sign a release or waiver until you have gotten legal advice Accept a check from your insurance company unless you are positive that the amount is fair compensation for your losses

Comparative Negligence vs Contributory Negligence

The laws regarding comparative negligence and contributory negligence vary from state to state. Both relate to the distribution of fault following an accident and to the recovery of monetary damages.

The majority of states operate under a comparative negligence theory. This allows individuals to sue other motorists, regardless of whether their own negligence contributed to the accident. However, due to apportionment of fault (also called allocation of fault), they cannot recover the full damages. Damages are reduced by the percentage of fault for which the suing driver is responsible. It can be illustrated by using an example: a driver makes an illegal right-on-red and is hit by a car traveling 12 mph over the speed limit. If the turning driver tries to sue the speeding driver for $100,000 in damages, a jury will be required to determine the division of fault. Suppose that the jury finds that the turning driver was responsible for 40 percent of the accident, the speeding driver was responsible for 60 percent ,and agrees that the damages are worth $100,000. In this case, the turning driver would be able to recover $60,000. That is, the driver would only be able to recover the percentage for which the other driver was responsible (60 percent of $100,000). If, on the other hand, the jury had found that the turning driver was responsible for 60 percent and the negligence of the speeding driver was responsible for only 40 percent, the turning driver would only be able to recover $40,000. This example illustrates Pure Comparative Negligence. Some states have adopted Modified Comparative Negligence Laws, whereby an individual may sue only if his or her negligence is responsible for less than 50 percent of the resulting damages. 

Contributory negligence is less common. Under contributory negligence, an individual cannot sue another for injuries or damages if his or her negligent actions contributed in any way to the accident. Using the aforementioned examples, the driver who made an illegal right-on-red and was struck by a car traveling 12 mph over the speed limit cannot sue the speeding motorist for damages. Because the driver’s own negligence contributed to the accident, he or she is unable to recover any damages from the speeding motorist. This case would be a case of Pure Contributory Negligence. Other states have adopted a Modified Contributory Negligence system, under which individuals may file a suit against another civil offender (such as the speeding motorist), only if it is determined that their own negligence contributed to the accident less than 50 percent.   

No Fault vs Fault Liability Insurance

Nearly half the states in the US have some form of no-fault liability laws. Under no-fault insurance, insurance companies provide automatic compensation for accident victims, regardless of who was at fault. Approximately half of the no-fault states limit the right to sue. The purpose of no-fault programs is to lower the number of lawsuits by eliminating the need to determine who is at fault.    

The opposite of no-fault liability is the traditional fault system. Under the fault system, compensation for damages is based on the determination of who was at fault and to what extent. Fault disputes are often resolved with lawsuits. If a state has no exceptions to the fault law, the person responsible for causing the car accident is liable for all resulting injuries and damages.    

With few exceptions, car accidents are subject to the laws of the state in which they occur. State laws can differ considerably but they can be divided into four broad categories: 

There are further complexities to the no-fault system. Some states have monetary or circumstantial limits to the law. There may be a set dollar amount for which individuals must self-insure. For example, the no-fault system may apply for all financial losses up to $15,000. Circumstantial limits involve the specifics of the accident. If you do not know or are confused by the laws of your state, an experienced car accident attorney can guide you through the details and their legal implications. Insurance companies in fault states can provide policies that include coverage for accidents in no-fault states and vice versa. This is a more complete type of coverage that ensures compensation regardless of where an accident takes place. 

Strict Liability

Strict liability, also known as “absolute liability," holds that the defendant is responsible for injuring another person regardless of negligence or intent.  If a car accident was the result of a defective product and the plaintiff can prove that his or her injuries were caused by the defective product and that the product was allowed to be sold, the manufacturer of that product is liable without question. If it is determined that the defective product in question was responsible for the damage inflicted on the injury victim, it is considered to be “unreasonably dangerous” and the manufacturer is held responsible.  Faulty brake liners are an example of a defective product that might be involved in a car accident and involve strict liability for the manufacturer.

Special Situations

In some states, there is a presumption of fault if the driver of a car strikes a pedestrian or bicyclist.  This presumption can be overturned if there is evidence of fault or law-breaking behavior on the part of the pedestrian or bicyclist.  In no-fault states, injured pedestrians are usually covered by their own automobile insurance policies, despite the fact that they were not in a car at the time of the accident. This holds even if the driver was at fault.

In a rental or leased vehicle, the individual’s own insurance policy will cover them for any automobile they are driving in the event of a car accident.  It is not necessary to buy supplemental insurance from the rental or leasing company unless the person is looking to increase their coverage.

When a domestic animal is injured and the driver suffers damage, there may be a presumption of fault on the part of the animal’s owner for allowing the pet to become a danger.  If the accident was caused by negligence on the driver’s part, the owner of the animal may file a lawsuit against the driver.  The value of damages to the animal and it’s medical care are limited in most states and do not permit financial compensation for non-economic damages associated with the loss of a pet.  If injury or damage is sustained by a driver’s collision with a wild animal, it is generally covered without assignment of fault.  The driver should assist the animal only if he or she can do so without posing any further danger to himself or herself or other motorists.

Proximate and Intervening Causes

Proximate cause is based on the law of cause and effect - that all actions have consequences that result naturally and continuously. In personal injury law, proximate cause is a term that refers to the act that initiated the chain of events that resulted in an injury. The injury would not have occurred if the act had not occurred, so that act is the cause and the injury is the effect. Personal injury laws hold that an individual is responsible for an injury if he or she is responsible for the negligent act that led to the injury. The concept of proximate cause can be illustrated with an example:   Dan makes a pile of snowballs in his front yard. A neighbor walking by picks up a snowball and throws it at a car, causing it to crash and injuring the driver. In this case, even though Dan made the snowballs, he was not the proximate cause of the accident. The neighbor’s act of throwing the snowball is the proximate cause of the driver's injury.    

An intervening cause is one that changes the natural progression of events. The presence of an intervening cause can lessen or even eliminate the culpability of a prior actor. In the previously stated example, the neighbor’s action is also an intervening cause. Therefore, Dan is not responsible for an injury resulting from his act of making snowballs because the neighbor's actions seperate Dan's actions from the accident.  

In order for one to be liable for injuries and damages resulting from a car accident, an individual's negligence must be the proximate cause of those injuries and damages, without the presence of any intervening causes. The presence of an intervening cause can be used as a potential defense against accusations of negligence.

Negligent Entrustment

According to negligent entrustment laws, individuals may be held responsible for car accidents and related damages caused by any person using their vehicle with permission. This holds even if the permission is only implied. Many states allow the driver and the owner of a motor vehicle to be sued for a car accident. Under vicarious liability, the owner of a car may be liable even if he or she was not present at the time of the car accident because it is his or her responsibility to ensure that the car is not operated in a negligent manner. The same principle can be applied when employees are involved in car accidents while driving company vehicles. The employer may be held liable provided that the car accident took place during the course of regular employment and was not the result of an employee abusing his or her right to the vehicle.  

All content on Accidents.com is for informational purposes only and is NOT intended as legal or medical advice. Please seek advice from a professional on any related topics.

Tags:  Car Accidents · Legal Help · Vehicle Accidents