Left Turn Traffic Accident

[extrailie]

My question involves an accident that occurred in the state of: Vermont

Hello,
My insurance is trying to mess with me and put me at fault for something that I am very certain is not my fault. Here are the details.
I was turning left out of a parking lot. Immediately to the left of the parking lot is a railroad track. To the right is a 5 way intersection. Traffic was backed up going past the rail road track and there was a truck that stopped to let me turn left. There was another big vehicle to my right, so I pulled in front of the truck to get a better view of what was coming from the right. I waited until it was clear and pulled forward, but that was when a guy went around the truck and the 2-3 cars that were behind it and was directly in front of me as I was pulling forward. There are two lanes approaching the intersection to my right, but they do not start until after the railroad tracks. There is even a giant orange cone in the middle of the road that says do not pass until after the railroad tracks. He went over a double yellow line and ignored that cone, but the insurance is trying to blame me because he was not breaking the law while I hit him.
Any ideas how I can fight this?
Thanks

[pg1067]

My insurance is trying to mess with me and put me at fault for something that I am very certain is not my fault. Here are the details.

Can you elaborate about this? You say that the insurer is both "trying to mess with" you and "trying to . . . put [you] at fault." What does "trying to mess with me" mean, and why do you think that "mess[ing] with" you is the insurer's intent?

I was turning left out of a parking lot.

Before I go further, I'm going to point out that "turning left out of a parking lot" is going to result in you being the at fault driver upwards of 95 times out of 100.

Any ideas how I can fight this?
Thanks

The situation you described is hard to follow. Any chance you want to post a Google Maps link or provide some sort of diagram?

With that said, why is your insurer a problem here? Did you make a claim against the other driver's liability coverage? If so, you should be dealing with his insurer, not yours. If you made a claim against your own collision coverage, then fault isn't an issue. Did the other driver make a claim against your liability coverage? Or did you make a claim against your own uninsured motorist coverage?

[Mark47n]

My daughter's first car was totalled in an identical accident. Your biggest problem is that you, as the turning vehicle, are responsible for giving way. So, you're in the wrong. While they may have been in the wrong in passing before the RR tracks they still have the right of way. Just because someone else yieded their right of way don't mean that they yielded it for all behind them. It's like cutting in line.

[adjusterjack]

Any ideas how I can fight this?

You can make a claim against the other driver's insurance. If you get paid for your damage then your own insurance will no longer "mess" with you. The claim will be closed, no payment, without any decision about fault.

Beyond that, I agree with PG1067 (an attorney by the way) that when you pull out of a driveway you have a duty to yield to traffic coming from the right or the left. If you hit or get hit on your way to the other side of the road it means you failed to yield and are at fault for the accident.

If you made a claim against your own collision coverage, then fault isn't an issue.

Yes, it is. An at-fault collision claim results in a surcharge to the policy. Not at-fault doesn't because your insurance company can recover from the at-fault driver's insurance.

[pg1067]

Yes, it is. An at-fault collision claim results in a surcharge to the policy. Not at-fault doesn't because your insurance company can recover from the at-fault driver's insurance.

Right...I meant not an issue in terms of the claim being paid (less the deductible). Also, you mistakenly gave me credit for Mark47n's comment, which I agree is likely the correct analysis.

[llworking]

My daughter's first car was totalled in an identical accident. Your biggest problem is that you, as the turning vehicle, are responsible for giving way. So, you're in the wrong. While they may have been in the wrong in passing before the RR tracks they still have the right of way. Just because someone else yieded their right of way don't mean that they yielded it for all behind them. It's like cutting in line.

My daughter also had the same kind of accident. However in her situation a police officer in his patrol car stopped to let her out, and someone went past him and hit her. Legally, it was her fault. In my personal opinion she was also making a really stupid left turn. There were three other exits in that parking lot that would have allowed for her to making a right turn out of the lot instead of a left turn that was close to an intersection.

I don't make what I consider to be high risk left turns. There is always a better option.

[Christopher A]

The best resolution that I can suggest is to contact a lawyer and he can patronize you. They know the correct loop points as well as the exact procedures of these claims. The insurance companies will always try to deny the claim. There are many recondite corporate profit games are going on internally. So it's always preferable to move legally or take advice from a panthomath.

[adjusterjack]

The best resolution that I can suggest is to contact a lawyer and he can patronize you. They know the correct loop points as well as the exact procedures of these claims. The insurance companies will always try to deny the claim. There are many recondite corporate profit games are going on internally. So it's always preferable to move legally or take advice from a panthomath.

If you want to post gibberish at least get it right.

It pantomath, not panthomath.

And, yes, there are several of us pantomaths on this site.

[Christopher A]

If you want to post gibberish at least get it right.

It pantomath, not panthomath.

And, yes, there are several of us pantomaths on this site.

Sorry Sir, actually I meant by pantomath is someone who knows the procedures of these claims and thanks for your consultative mind.

[adjusterjack]

Sorry Sir, actually I meant by pantomath is someone who knows the procedures of these claims and thanks for your consultative mind.

A pantomath is defined as one who knows everything about everything. Since that's impossible, the term is often used pejoratively as in "Yeah, right, Mr know-it-all."

Be careful when you use highfalutin words to try to impress people as they may have unintended results.

That being said, you did use "recondite" properly.