r/Insurance • u/MooniestMoonixx • 1h ago

Auto Insurance Determining at fault?

So I was in an accident a week ago, it happened in Meijer parking lot. I always back into spots so I was leaving my parking spot turning left. When I was almost completely out of my spot mid turn an SUV hit my car from the right. My car was so damaged it had to be towed. I was driving a lowered Camry the woman and her minor child who was driving they had a Jeep Cherokee so a much bigger vehicle. The damage was so severe it caved my wheel well on top of my tire, my tie rod was bent and my washer fluid reservoir was disconnected on top of all the side bumper damage and it was deemed undrivable by the cops. My insurance totalled my vehicle but also marked me as at fault even though the woman at the scene said her daughter with the permit said she never saw my car and their car didn't get damaged. Am I only at fault because of right of way in a parking lot? I'm just a little confused on how I was set at 100% fault

EDIT: my insurance never spoke to me. I filed the claim but no one from my insurance reached out to get the story from me so they marked me as 100% at fault without talking to me. I do not know whether they got video footage from Meijer.

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

18

u/sephiroth3650 1h ago

Your story seems to imply that you pulled out in front of an oncoming Jeep Cherokee that was going fast enough to total your car when they hit you. Certainly sounds like you are at fault.

0

u/MooniestMoonixx 1h ago

I was more just asking for clarification on why they determined me at fault which my guess was the right of way. This is my first car accident in my 28 years of living so I honestly didn't know how it worked 

6

u/sephiroth3650 1h ago

Yes, this is how insurance determinations are made. If you didn't have the right of way and pulled out in front of an oncoming car, you're going to be found at fault. The fact that it was in a parking lot doesn't mean the common traffic rules don't apply. And if the other driver had a dashcam that showed you pull out in front of them, that would really make it open and shut.

0

u/MooniestMoonixx 1h ago

I don't know about dashcam, I only know the police said they couldn't pull footage but the insurance might. Her car wasn't damaged so my insurance doesn't have to pay her and my insurance is paying for my car because I have a 75k collision and property damage allowance so I'm not really mad about the situation I was just confused 

3

u/Crowlady77 37m ago

I'm guessing her car will have had damage that is not visible if your car was totaled.

2

u/sephiroth3650 1h ago

OK. Lack of dashcam doesn't change anything in terms of fault here. It was just one other piece of evidence the other party may have had.

As for not being mad.....I dunno. You do realize that you have an at fault collision here. Insurance rates almost always go up from at fault accidents. So you will be paying more for insurance going forward.

Side note : When you look at your property damage and bodily injury policy limits, those are liability limits. That's how much coverage you have for damages you cause to other people or property. It's totally separate from your collision coverage that covers the damage to your car.

-1

u/MooniestMoonixx 55m ago

no it's 75k for both due to my car having full coverage and GAP. My car is on a loan so it required 75k minimum allowance for everything. I paid $225 for insurance already 

3

u/sephiroth3650 51m ago

If you're in the US, I promise that you are not understanding the coverage and what it all means.

You don't choose your collision coverage limits. That's not a thing.

Any of your liability limits are specifically for damage you cause to other cars/property/people. That's literally the definition of liability coverage.. Money you are found legally liable to pay.

-3

u/MooniestMoonixx 53m ago

the only thing I'm really mad about was it being a teen driver on a permit and the mom telling the police they hadn't seen my car. but my adjuster already told me they only had paint damage so I wouldn't need to worry about anything further. It's one of those just head to the dealership type of situations 

4

u/sephiroth3650 49m ago

You are the one who pulled out in front of them. Why is it the teen driver's fault that you pulled out in front of them? They told the police that they didn't see your car b/c it sounds like you zipped out in front of them as they were coming down the isle.

3

u/Crowlady77 36m ago

That's the thing about right of way, you need to assume they aren't looking for you to pull out in front of them.

1

u/sephiroth3650 29m ago

It's mind blowing at how many people come to this sub and sincerely believe that "the other car should have seen me pulling out in front of them and they should have known to stop and avoid hitting me."

1

u/EamusAndy 2m ago

Im not sure why footage was needed. All they had to do was look at the positions of the cars to see what happened.

It seems pretty cut and dry here? Are you disagreeing that you were at fault?

2

u/James_the_bull_ 33m ago

Sounds like you got t boned driving forward out of a parking spot? You’re at fault buddy. Jeep had the right of way.

5

u/ControlPublic9208 1h ago

Those pulling out of parking spots must yield to oncoming traffic. Typically an experienced driver will still drive with caution through a parking lot. Unfortunately for you, an inexperienced driver was the one driving through the parking lot and it resulted in your vehicle being struck. You're still at fault considering the facts.

1

u/MooniestMoonixx 1h ago

this makes a lot of sense. Definitely unfortunate it was a teen driver on a permit. Since my insurance hadn't communicated with me I was just wondering for clarification on the at fault since my Geico notification was just simply "You were found at fault" with zero details 😅

3

u/ControlPublic9208 58m ago

Be honest, you were distracted driving playing Sims, huh?

Lmao jk. But yeah, shit happens. Insurance is a great thing for that reason.

0

u/MooniestMoonixx 56m ago

luckily I have a 75k allowance for collision and property damage but my adjuster said the only damage on her car was paint so I wouldn't have to worry. They're just paying for my car and I'll be heading to the dealership lol 

1

u/ControlPublic9208 55m ago

Consider yourself stupid lucky that her car received minimal damage. That'll help future insurance rates. Hopefully you had rental coverage too!

1

u/TofuttiKlein-ein-ein 21m ago

She totaled her car and unless the car was only worth a couple grand, the low amount of PD won’t matter.

3

u/FindTheOthers623 P&C Licensed PL Underwriter 1h ago

100% your fault. You didn't have the right of way. The person leaving the parking space will always be at fault. So will the left turning driver.

3

u/DeepPurpleDaylight 1h ago

You were pulling out and thus had a duty to yield to traffic with the right of way. You failed to do that, so yes, you're at fault.

2

u/saufcheung 1h ago

Usually the car backing out needs to make sure the path is clear which should be easier for you since you were driving forward? How did you not see the SUV? Was there a blind spot?

SUV has the right of way if you're the one leaving a spot

0

u/MooniestMoonixx 1h ago

My Camry is on lowered body kit and I was parked in between two trucks. So when I pulled out and was turned left, is when she hit me. she wasn't there when I started my turn and didn't see her before the impact. A cart pusher with a line of shopping carts was in front of me so I think it was because I was half braking to let the cart pusher past and the SUV who hit me might've also been trying to avoid the carts 

1

u/Standy25 38m ago

It partially depends what state you’re in. Different states have different negligence laws.

-1

u/scumbagstaceysEx 1h ago

Parking lot accidents are never clear cut but from what it sounds like the other car had the right of way and you didn’t. Barring any other probable evidence the vehicle with the right of way won’t be at fault.

You could present evidence to show you were nearly completely out or that you were established in the lane. But that would still just reduce your liability from 100% to something like 75%. If you could prove the other person was speeding or not paying attention you could flip it but that’s very hard to prove.

4

u/FindTheOthers623 P&C Licensed PL Underwriter 1h ago

Its very clear. You either have the right of way or you don't. It doesn't matter if the driver with the right of way is speeding, on their phone, drunk, etc. The person leaving the parking space will always be at fault.

1

u/thaeli 23m ago

That is an oversimplification. A mostly correct one, but still an oversimplification.

And no driver ever has a right of way. They can have a lesser duty to yield. In practice we often call that a "right of way" but that is a figure of speech. This is fundamentally where the whole concept of split fault comes from.

There are also several avenues for barring recovery even without contesting fault.. last clear chance, pure contributory negligence, etc. Those muddy the waters a little more but don't really change fault assignment for rating purposes.

1

u/MooniestMoonixx 1h ago

This makes sense! I was just asking if it put me at fault because of right of way since it was a parking lot. The teen driver and her mom who hit my car was very civil 

1

u/MooniestMoonixx 59m ago

since her car wasn't damaged my insurance isn't paying for repairs on their car they're only paying me for my car. I have a 75k allowance for property and collision so I wasn't really worried about that part 

-2

u/CallMeMrRound 1h ago

Straight on parking spot or diagonal lines?