Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Topper
In fact isn't it usually the case that in an accident of that nature, the person backing up is held at fault by insurance companies/police?
|
As the self-designated insurance expert (seriously, this is one of the things I do all day), I can tell you that what you said is NOT necessarily the case. Just because you are in reverse, you do not necessarily relenquish the right-of-way. Also, insurance companies and police are mutually exclusive and quite often come to different conclusions as to who was to blame and who is more liable in an accident. For example, it's quite common for a trucker's insurance to pay in a fatal accident even if he was stopped at a light in broad daylight on a dry day. The police might say that the person who rearended the truck was 100% at fault, but the insurance company may just pay because they don't want the case to go to court for a variety of reasons. I have a great example on my desk right now with that exact scenario for ready-mix concrete supplier that I'm trying to attack for my client. The guy who hit the truck survived, but he's never going to eat on his own again. He was a very popular preacher in a small town with 2 small kids. The insurance company wrote a $1,000,000 check 60 days after the accident to just make it go away. They figured that a jury would find them liable for at least that much and this way they could save themselves the attorney fees.
If you hit someone on private property, the insurance companies are going to fight over it, and the police won't get involved unless you call them. That's not a very bad idea, especially if you think that someone could conceivably think you're at fault.