Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alt+f4
What sucks is i was the Proper distance behind the car infront of me, but since she didnt brake i hit the Bronco infront of me...The Kicker is I WAS Listed as [partially] at fault...
|
I have seen your situation before but thankfully, [knock-on-wood] it hasn't yet happened to me.[/knock]
Since you rear-ended the Bronco (from a stand-still while still applying the brake), it is automatically
assumed you are in the wrong for not maintaining a proper distance. This saves the police from doing a CSI-type of investigation on every fender bender.
It is
you who has to prove you
had a proper distance in the first place. The insurance company representing you becomes the insurance company representing its own bottom line. In most cases like yours, the lead car (the Bronco) had damage but little personal injury. The insurance company that once represented you is now seeing it as a cheaper route to admit guilt for you and fix the damage than doing any kind of investigation to prove the truth.
Putting forth the effort oneself to show a proper distance
while stopped was maintained can be costly. I know of one case where the person was successful. This person, however, has deep pockets and was willing to do the fight the fight on principle even though it ended up costing him more than his deductable when no guarantees were involved. (Not the first time I have seen fighting something on principle is easier with deep pockets.)
And, yes, it does suck.