Sometimes facts do not make it clear who could be at-fault. At other times, more than on person could be held responsible.
Who might recognize the existence of such a situation?
The adjuster in the company that had insured the policyholder that was the owner of a car that was involved in the accident. A Personal Injury Lawyer in Barrie that has been hired by a claimant.
A claimant that has heard from the insurance company that he or she has been viewed as partly to blame for the accident’s occurrence. Someone that has been involved in a multi-car accident.
The owner of a service shop, upon learning that the victim of a collision has viewed the shop’s services as something that might have caused an injury-linked accident.
The anticipated actions of an adjuster that has recognized a situation in which there are questions about fault:
Examine the circumstances linked to the reported accident. Study the state laws, in order to determine whether or not any driver had been negligent, as per Personal Injury Lawyer in Barrie.
Usually, the adjuster for each of the drivers forms an argument that seeks the lowest percentage of fault for the company’s policyholder. Yet that might not be true, if the submission of a first party claim has been the reason for the adjuster’s case. Adjusters try to save their employer (the insurance company) as much money as possible.
Adjusters take part in the negotiations. If those do not lead to an agreement, it becomes the adjuster’s job to present his or her argument in a courtroom.
What sort of evidence might make its way to adjusters’ desks, during their study of the relevant facts?
• The police report
• Any photos taken at the site of the collision, or any photos of damaged property
• The available witness statements
• Anything that could support a charge of negligence
–In some states, that charge might become grounds for contributory negligence. That would mean that no one that had contributed to the accident’s occurrence could get any compensation.
–In most states, that charge could become grounds for comparative negligence. That would mean that the size of the compensation would be inversely proportional to the number of factors that a given party managed to contribute to those that caused the collision.
What sorts of policies cover injuries received in a collision that has introduced questions about fault?
In a no-fault state, each driver is supposed to carry personal injury protection. That ensures coverage of injuries suffered in an event where there remain questions about who was at-fault.
In other states, some drivers purchase a policy that grants personal injury protection. Those same drivers then enjoy coverage of any injury sustained when there was no one identified as at-fault party.