Bike Crash - Advice Needed!

[betahprod]

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this - new to the forums!

I recently got involved in a collision and the insurance company is pursuing a claim against me. I need advice! I have talked to multiple lawyers but I'm curious to see if anyone else has gone through a similar situation and what was your outcome? :confused:

I was riding with my team in late-January when I split off from the group to take a leak. I started casually descending knowing that we would likely regroup at the bottom. Two cars caught up to me so I signaled for them to pass when safe, and they did. As we descended, I could see the cars and my team in the distance when there were straightaways. They couldn't pass my team and as a result the pack started to slow down. I turned one corner after the next and during one turn one of the cars I had let passed me decided to make an abrupt stop. The road is a two way road with a double yellow all the way down. He made a left turn into an existing road without signaling. I locked my brakes up with at least 30 feet worth of space but couldn't compete with the brakes of a car. I ran into his side mid-turn and ricochetted onto the other shoulder. The driver stated that they were unfamiliar with the roads and that they nearly missed there turn.

Unfortunately the "signaling" detail was left out of the police report... dang it! And now I'm responsible for a $7000 worth of damages for colliding into the car. My damages amount to almost $9000 dollars... :crap: Obviously, I'm contesting liability and fault as I felt like I was trying to a be a courteous cyclist - following the spirit of the law letting him pass and because the driver failed to signal his turn. I have since physically recovered but have stuck to riding mountain...

Post up if you've been involved in an accident that you were deemed at fault for or if you've fought an insurance company (they have no soul!). Any advice works!

[elcolombiano]

I am sorry to hear about your unfortunate situation. A good defense is always a good offense. The other parties insurance company does not care who is in the right and who is in the wrong. They have lawyers who's job it is to extract as much money from you as possible. The best way to protect yourself against this is to be very aggressive from the get go. If you had injuries you should have a lawyer making claims on your behalf. If they are asking for $7,000 you should be asking them for $70,000. If they see there is even a slight risk of you getting this kind of money from a jury they will back off and leave you alone as it is not worth the risk to them.

[Dead Man]

I am sorry to hear about your unfortunate situation. A good defense is always a good offense. The other parties insurance company does not care who is in the right and who is in the wrong. They have lawyers who's job it is to extract as much money from you as possible. The best way to protect yourself against this is to be very aggressive from the get go. If you had injuries you should have a lawyer making claims on your behalf. If they are asking for $7,000 you should be asking them for $70,000. If they see there is even a slight risk of you getting this kind of money from a jury they will back off and leave you alone as it is not worth the risk to them.

Hear hear.. Although it sounds like you were at-fault, OP. Gotta know your stopping distances.

[Louis]

Seems to me that you waving them by has nothing to do with any one side being at fault or not. Granted they might not have been where they were if you had not let them pass, but that's immaterial.

The issues are 1) Drivers (and cyclists) are supposed to signal turns, and 2) Any driver or cyclist is suppose to be "in control" of his vehicle and able to stop, regardless of what the vehicle in front of them does, whether that's slam on the brakes for a panic stop due to a child / deer / whatever darting out into the road or slow to turn, with or without a turn signal.

I'd say you're primarily responsible for the accident because you weren't able to stop the bike in time, but the driver was a bit responsible because s/he should have signaled.

[cinema]

i'm confused. why is the driver allowed to stop short, not look or signal, and run into a cyclist. At least around here there are long lines of cars that don't even really move half the time and I was hit by one who just decided to turn right into me without signaling to get to a parking spot and the insurance company quickly found them at fault.

[Louis]

The way I read it the cyclist hit the car.

[cachagua]

Why is the driver allowed to stop short, not look or signal, and run into a cyclist...

I read the original post a little differently -- that the cyclist ran into the car.

Long lines of cars that don't even really move half the time and I was hit by one who just decided to turn right into me without signaling to get to a parking spot and the insurance company quickly found them at fault...

It sounds like you were traveling faster than the line of cars, when one turned right and hit you? If so, you were passing on the right, which is a violation in every jurisdiction I've ever ridden in. If it's different where you live, that's as may be, but if you got an insurance payout in that circumstance I'd say you're lucky.

Note also that in the original post, the car was turning left. Slightly different situation, but similar enough -- insofar as basically any road user is responsible for whatever's ahead of them. There are unusual conditions, there can be mitigating circumstances, but this is an axiom, a fundamental of traffic. It is, among other things, the very good reason *why* passing on the right is illegal: a right turn (although it's supposed to be properly signaled) is the right of way of traffic on the right, and if you tangle with someone doing that, you shouldn't have.

Anyway, I'm glad everyone's safe and at least one person got some dough outta the insurance companies.

[Bruce K]

I am pretty sure that here in MA it is illegal for a car to "Right Hook" a cyclist (turn right in front of you without being sure there is enough distance to clear the intersection WITHOUT the cyclist having to brake).

If the car cut you off by making an unsafe turn, that would be different from him just turning without a signal and you running into the side of him.

#1 is on him. #2 is on you.

Without witnesses......

BK

[jlwdm]

It was a left turn.

Jeff

[oldpotatoe]

Not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this - new to the forums!

I recently got involved in a collision and the insurance company is pursuing a claim against me. I need advice! I have talked to multiple lawyers but I'm curious to see if anyone else has gone through a similar situation and what was your outcome? :confused:

I was riding with my team in late-January when I split off from the group to take a leak. I started casually descending knowing that we would likely regroup at the bottom. Two cars caught up to me so I signaled for them to pass when safe, and they did. As we descended, I could see the cars and my team in the distance when there were straightaways. They couldn't pass my team and as a result the pack started to slow down. I turned one corner after the next and during one turn one of the cars I had let passed me decided to make an abrupt stop. The road is a two way road with a double yellow all the way down. He made a left turn into an existing road without signaling. I locked my brakes up with at least 30 feet worth of space but couldn't compete with the brakes of a car. I ran into his side mid-turn and ricochetted onto the other shoulder. The driver stated that they were unfamiliar with the roads and that they nearly missed there turn.

Unfortunately the "signaling" detail was left out of the police report... dang it! And now I'm responsible for a $7000 worth of damages for colliding into the car. My damages amount to almost $9000 dollars... :crap: Obviously, I'm contesting liability and fault as I felt like I was trying to a be a courteous cyclist - following the spirit of the law letting him pass and because the driver failed to signal his turn. I have since physically recovered but have stuck to riding mountain...

Post up if you've been involved in an accident that you were deemed at fault for or if you've fought an insurance company (they have no soul!). Any advice works!

I am sorry about your ordeal but if you were in a car, you would have gotten the ticket also. Since the turn signal info was omitted, it is now, his word against yours and since you were following, and failed to stop, while he was turning left, you are at fault, unfortunately and IMHO.

[berserk87]

I am sorry to hear about your unfortunate situation. A good defense is always a good offense. The other parties insurance company does not care who is in the right and who is in the wrong. They have lawyers who's job it is to extract as much money from you as possible. The best way to protect yourself against this is to be very aggressive from the get go. If you had injuries you should have a lawyer making claims on your behalf. If they are asking for $7,000 you should be asking them for $70,000. If they see there is even a slight risk of you getting this kind of money from a jury they will back off and leave you alone as it is not worth the risk to them.

Much of this is unsound advice and untrue.

The insurance company does care who is right or wrong. They have a duty to defend their own insured, and they don't do that very well by disregarding a claim that they rightfully owe. In not doing so, they open their insured up to a lawsuit with the potential for a jury verdict in excess of their insured's liability limit, which could be devastating to their insured. It would also expose the insurance company to a lawsuit from its own insured for failure to properly defend.

So it is far easier for the insurance company to pay for damages that it owes that to wrangle in murky waters and expose their insured to a lawsuit.

Note that the OP did not say that he was being sued - it is more likely that the insurance company has sent him a letter stating that they would pursue him for recovery of what they have paid. Attorneys cost money - on both sides - and advising the OP to get an attorney to pursue a seemingly shaky counterclaim will cost him more money, too. If the insurance company has a good case, they will not be shaken by this.

Unless the OP has a good witness to the vehicle not signaling, I would agree with Oldpotatoe: it is the OP's word versus the driver, and in this kind of dilemma (no other supporting evidence), the insurance company sides with the person paying their premium. Even with the lack of signaling being considered, there is still a good deal of fault to be placed on the OP. The vehicle/cyclist behind a vehicle owes a duty to maintain a safe following distance and a proper lookout for things ahead of him.

The OP might consider hiring an attorney for a set fee to contest liability, with the hope of negotiating some kind of compromise settlement that would reduce what he would have to pay. Another option is to check and see if any liability insurance he might carry (i.e. homeowners, auto or umbrella policy) might provide some help. Probably not, but it don't cost nuthin' to check.

[weisan]

Betah pal, I am sorry for what you are going through, this is very unfortunate....even more so that you have given up road riding to mountain...hopefully when this all blows over, in not too long distant future, you might consider giving it a try again.

[AngryScientist]

Much of this is unsound advice and untrue.

The insurance company does care who is right or wrong. They have a duty to defend their own insured, and they don't do that very well by disregarding a claim that they rightfully owe. In not doing so, they open their insured up to a lawsuit with the potential for a jury verdict in excess of their insured's liability limit, which could be devastating to their insured. It would also expose the insurance company to a lawsuit from its own insured for failure to properly defend.

So it is far easier for the insurance company to pay for damages that it owes that to wrangle in murky waters and expose their insured to a lawsuit.

Note that the OP did not say that he was being sued - it is more likely that the insurance company has sent him a letter stating that they would pursue him for recovery of what they have paid. Attorneys cost money - on both sides - and advising the OP to get an attorney to pursue a seemingly shaky counterclaim will cost him more money, too. If the insurance company has a good case, they will not be shaken by this.

Unless the OP has a good witness to the vehicle not signaling, I would agree with Oldpotatoe: it is the OP's word versus the driver, and in this kind of dilemma (no other supporting evidence), the insurance company sides with the person paying their premium. Even with the lack of signaling being considered, there is still a good deal of fault to be placed on the OP. The vehicle/cyclist behind a vehicle owes a duty to maintain a safe following distance and a proper lookout for things ahead of him.

The OP might consider hiring an attorney for a set fee to contest liability, with the hope of negotiating some kind of compromise settlement that would reduce what he would have to pay. Another option is to check and see if any liability insurance he might carry (i.e. homeowners, auto or umbrella policy) might provide some help. Probably not, but it don't cost nuthin' to check.

I'm not a lawyer, but i agree with most of this.

further, at least in my state every auto insurance policy carries "uninsured motorist coverage" which covers you in the event that somebody who doesnt have insurance causes damage to you. That will likely kick in here, as the OP was on a bicycle and doesnt carry coverage for damages, as he is not required to by law. the OP probably received the letter in an attempt to have him pay the damages, but it is unlikely that the insurance company is going to sue the OP to actually get the money out of him. It would likely cost the insurance company about what the damages were at $7k.

[berserk87]

I'm not a lawyer, but i agree with most of this.

further, at least in my state every auto insurance policy carries "uninsured motorist coverage" which covers you in the event that somebody who doesnt have insurance causes damage to you. That will likely kick in here, as the OP was on a bicycle and doesnt carry coverage for damages, as he is not required to by law. the OP probably received the letter in an attempt to have him pay the damages, but it is unlikely that the insurance company is going to sue the OP to actually get the money out of him. It would likely cost the insurance company about what the damages were at $7k.

Good thinking, but to be considered an "uninsured motorist", the at-fault party has to be exactly that - a motorist that does not have insurance. I doubt that a bicyclist meets that definition according to most insurance policies.

It's hard to tell what the insurance company will do. Some would file suit and some would weigh the economics of it as you have noted.

[malcolm]

I'm not sure I completely follow the story but if the gist is that a car slowed or stopped in front of you to make a left turn across traffic and you couldn't stop in time and ran into them then I think the onus is on you. I think you would be considered at fault in that scenario in a car and as such it will likely carry over to the bike. I think as the operator of a vehicle it's your responsibility to allow safe operating distance.

Sorry for your situation and wish you the best but if the above is the way it happened I don't think you have a leg to stand on. The rest of the story doesn't matter. Hopefully I'm wrong

[ofcounsel]

Betah pal, I am sorry for what you are going through, this is very unfortunate....even more so that you have given up road riding to mountain..

Mountain is better..... Blessing in disguise:)

[cinema]

I read the original post a little differently -- that the cyclist ran into the car.



It sounds like you were traveling faster than the line of cars, when one turned right and hit you? If so, you were passing on the right, which is a violation in every jurisdiction I've ever ridden in. If it's different where you live, that's as may be, but if you got an insurance payout in that circumstance I'd say you're lucky.

Note also that in the original post, the car was turning left. Slightly different situation, but similar enough -- insofar as basically any road user is responsible for whatever's ahead of them. There are unusual conditions, there can be mitigating circumstances, but this is an axiom, a fundamental of traffic. It is, among other things, the very good reason *why* passing on the right is illegal: a right turn (although it's supposed to be properly signaled) is the right of way of traffic on the right, and if you tangle with someone doing that, you shouldn't have.

Anyway, I'm glad everyone's safe and at least one person got some dough outta the insurance companies.

I was in a bike lane. So that automatically kind of sealed the deal. Anyway wasn't even aware that was illegal especially since motorcycles and cops on motorcycles do this in CA so it may be different.

I've always filtered to the front done it in front of hundreds of cops in my lifetime. I am aware this may be technically illegal but are you saying if i pass cars at stop lights on the left it's not illegal but on the right, where I'm supposed to be riding, it is?

[ColonelJLloyd]

In a case like this is the cyclist who is at fault not covered generally by their homeowner's policy? I have auto, homeowner's and health insurance. I'm not "uninsured" when I'm on my bike am I?

[OtayBW]

Mountain is better..... Blessing in disguise:)Huh?

[Matthew]

I am baffled at how you caused $7000 in damages and lived to tell about it!! 7k, really?!!! Wow.

[Dead Man]

I am baffled at how you caused $7000 in damages and lived to tell about it!! 7k, really?!!! Wow.

A dented door will hit $7k on some cars. That figure is irritatingly high, but not a surprise at all

[Matthew]

Complete rip off. Like college text books.

[makoti]

Were you riding on the yellow line? Or in the center of the lane & swerved left to try and avoid the rear of the car? If you were on the right hand side of the road, he turned left, I would have expected you to go right rather than left.
Sadly, as with cars, I believe it is the responsibility of the trailing vehicle to leave enough room.

[Dead Man]

I've had some relatively close calls with cars in similar situations.. I tend to ride on the line, when following cars on descents - not immediately sure why... I guess maybe in the hopes of being able to pass (which I'll sometimes do)? Whatever the case, I try to have my fingers on the brakes and be watching for it. Fact of the matter is, unless you're riding ****ing cantilevers, a bike can stop way faster than a car, so long as there isn't a big delay in response time. I can draft cars around my semi-rural 35-45mph roads with driveways and no-turn-pocket intersections with a pretty high level of confidence, so long as I'm on the front brake ready to hit it at any moment. I haven't hit anyone yet!

[AJM100]

First I would want to know OP's distance from the rear of the MV, position in relation to the rear of the MV and speed before the MV slowed to make a left turn w/o signaling.

You also have to think of this in terms of comparative fault. In some states negligence actions may be barred if the tortfeasor is determined to be more than 50% at fault and in others the degree (or percentage) of fault is assigned to the parties involved and prorated accordingly.

You should at least consult with an attorney on these issues and to determine if you are covered by your homeowners (assuming you own) or auto policy.

Good luck.

[paredown]

Local laws differ--where I grew up, as the "overtaking vehicle" you would probably be found liable, regardless of the failure of the other driver to signal or indeed stop abruptly.

I have no opinion on how the insurance plays out, since I have not been in a car<>bike crash to have to find out. It seems though it would be through your personal homeowner's policy (don't know if this is optional coverage or not) and not your car insurance, since you were not driving at the time.

[djg21]

Good thinking, but to be considered an "uninsured motorist", the at-fault party has to be exactly that - a motorist that does not have insurance. I doubt that a bicyclist meets that definition according to most insurance policies.

It's hard to tell what the insurance company will do. Some would file suit and some would weigh the economics of it as you have noted.

This is not true. It actually is supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. I got hit on my bike and the driver had the statutory minimum insurance coverage. My SUM coverage kicked in and my auto insurer paid out my policy limit. Note that I wasn't a motorist, and the motorist that hit me was not entirely uninsured.

Check with your insurer.

You did not indicate if you sustained any injury. I'm also not clear on the facts. You seem to indicate that an oncoming driver turn left in front of you and you the car. If this is the case, you may not be to blame.

BTW, this is how I was hit. An older driver tried to turn left while I was entering the intersection from the other direction. The driver was ticketed for failing to yield to no ing traffic.

It's not a bad idea to talk to a lawyer. It is a bad idea to post statements on the internet that may be used against you in a legal proceeding.

On edit: I re-read the initial post. So you were passing the vehicle moving in the same direction, on the vehicle's left? Was it multiple lanes? You might be SOL. Do you have any liability insurance?

[bicycletricycle]

This is how I would weigh the situation.


In my experience the cyclist will be more likely to be blamed for an incident regardless of the details. (In court, by the police, by the adjuster)

Directly negotiating with the insurance company on your own behalf will probably yield little result.

Hiring a lawyer may reduce a judgement or settlement but may cost just as much to hire as you will save.

I might try to drag the thing out as long as possible with the insurance company to see if they will settle for less. Start sending the insurance adjuster pictures of your injuries, doctors reports, witness reports, etc, maybe pay a lawyer to write a letter outlining your case and your damages. Basically try to make yourself a harder target for as little money as possible, then hope they will settle for less.

These people have to weigh their own time in the equation and may offer a discount just to get the thing off of their desk.


The letter of the law is only a small part of the issue, my dealings with lawyers has rarely centered around the actual law and the actual facts and more about ways to manipulate those thing to your own advantage.

When I was a kid I got into some trouble (I was clearly guilty and made no attempt to claim I wasn't to the police) , got a lawyer, and the strategy implemented was to delay for as long as possible till the assistant district attorney gave in, nothing to do with right and wrong, nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

It worked.

[Spdntrxi]

Having you let them by... They should have known you were there... It's not pass and forget.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter P.]

The OP should check with their automobile insurance agent.

Typically, when a cyclist is involved with a car in an accident, the cyclist's CAR INSURANCE will cover the cyclist BECAUSE A CAR WAS INVOLVED.

At least that's how it works in Connecticut. I ought to know; I've been hit 3 times.

So if the OP has automobile insurance that covers in this instance, they'd only be responsible for their deductible.

It won't hurt for them to contact their agent.

[nesteel]

If I'm reading the first post correctly, OP was passing on the left in a no passing zone. Regardless of being on a bike, or in a car, he's liable. The car signaling or not is a moot point. He should not have been left of a double yellow. It sucks to get injured, and hopefully his auto insurance policy helps cover the damages.

[betahprod]

Much of this is unsound advice and untrue.

The insurance company does care who is right or wrong. They have a duty to defend their own insured, and they don't do that very well by disregarding a claim that they rightfully owe. In not doing so, they open their insured up to a lawsuit with the potential for a jury verdict in excess of their insured's liability limit, which could be devastating to their insured. It would also expose the insurance company to a lawsuit from its own insured for failure to properly defend.

So it is far easier for the insurance company to pay for damages that it owes that to wrangle in murky waters and expose their insured to a lawsuit.

Note that the OP did not say that he was being sued - it is more likely that the insurance company has sent him a letter stating that they would pursue him for recovery of what they have paid. Attorneys cost money - on both sides - and advising the OP to get an attorney to pursue a seemingly shaky counterclaim will cost him more money, too. If the insurance company has a good case, they will not be shaken by this.

Unless the OP has a good witness to the vehicle not signaling, I would agree with Oldpotatoe: it is the OP's word versus the driver, and in this kind of dilemma (no other supporting evidence), the insurance company sides with the person paying their premium. Even with the lack of signaling being considered, there is still a good deal of fault to be placed on the OP. The vehicle/cyclist behind a vehicle owes a duty to maintain a safe following distance and a proper lookout for things ahead of him.

The OP might consider hiring an attorney for a set fee to contest liability, with the hope of negotiating some kind of compromise settlement that would reduce what he would have to pay. Another option is to check and see if any liability insurance he might carry (i.e. homeowners, auto or umbrella policy) might provide some help. Probably not, but it don't cost nuthin' to check.

This is the course of action I have taken. I know I'm at fault by law but I definitely feel the need to contest liability. I do not believe that I am fully liable. Because the damages are not over $10K no lawyer is willing to represent me in the case. :fight: So I've just been going back and forth with the insurance company. Feeling like a sitting duck as the case progresses.

[betahprod]

If I'm reading the first post correctly, OP was passing on the left in a no passing zone. Regardless of being on a bike, or in a car, he's liable. The car signaling or not is a moot point. He should not have been left of a double yellow. It sucks to get injured, and hopefully his auto insurance policy helps cover the damages.

I am not passing on the left. I was forced to brake and when I locked my brakes I slid into their left side because they were making a left turn.

[betahprod]

Were you riding on the yellow line? Or in the center of the lane & swerved left to try and avoid the rear of the car? If you were on the right hand side of the road, he turned left, I would have expected you to go right rather than left.
Sadly, as with cars, I believe it is the responsibility of the trailing vehicle to leave enough room.

He braked from 50 to 0 while the road was slightly curving to the right (
So when I saw him I locked my brakes and went straight.

[betahprod]

This is how I would weigh the situation.


In my experience the cyclist will be more likely to be blamed for an incident regardless of the details. (In court, by the police, by the adjuster)

Directly negotiating with the insurance company on your own behalf will probably yield little result.

Hiring a lawyer may reduce a judgement or settlement but may cost just as much to hire as you will save.

I might try to drag the thing out as long as possible with the insurance company to see if they will settle for less. Start sending the insurance adjuster pictures of your injuries, doctors reports, witness reports, etc, maybe pay a lawyer to write a letter outlining your case and your damages. Basically try to make yourself a harder target for as little money as possible, then hope they will settle for less.

These people have to weigh their own time in the equation and may offer a discount just to get the thing off of their desk.


The letter of the law is only a small part of the issue, my dealings with lawyers has rarely centered around the actual law and the actual facts and more about ways to manipulate those thing to your own advantage.

When I was a kid I got into some trouble (I was clearly guilty and made no attempt to claim I wasn't to the police) , got a lawyer, and the strategy implemented was to delay for as long as possible till the assistant district attorney gave in, nothing to do with right and wrong, nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

It worked.


Thanks for the advice! Stretching out the case so it will defer the time it takes for this company to 1) destroy my credit 2) contest liability is definitely something I'm pursuing as of now... This is my first major accident involving a car, and I do not have auto insurance. As a college student a $7k fee is :no:

[Birddog]

One important fact is missing. What is the name of the Insurance Co that is pursuing you? Some Co's are notorious about their subrogation tactics. Do your parents have Homeowners Insurance, you may have some liability coverage through them,it's worth checking it out.

[berserk87]

This is not true. It actually is supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. I got hit on my bike and the driver had the statutory minimum insurance coverage. My SUM coverage kicked in and my auto insurer paid out my policy limit. Note that I wasn't a motorist, and the motorist that hit me was not entirely uninsured.

Check with your insurer.

You did not indicate if you sustained any injury. I'm also not clear on the facts. You seem to indicate that an oncoming driver turn left in front of you and you the car. If this is the case, you may not be to blame.

BTW, this is how I was hit. An older driver tried to turn left while I was entering the intersection from the other direction. The driver was ticketed for failing to yield to no ing traffic.

It's not a bad idea to talk to a lawyer. It is a bad idea to post statements on the internet that may be used against you in a legal proceeding.

On edit: I re-read the initial post. So you were passing the vehicle moving in the same direction, on the vehicle's left? Was it multiple lanes? You might be SOL. Do you have any liability insurance?

You are incorrect - in your case you were a cyclist hit by an at-fault MOTORIST. This coverage would extend to you if the Uninsured/Underinsured motor vehicle driver is at fault.

In the OP's case, someone stated that the OP, as a cyclist, would be considered an uninsured motorist and that the driver's uninsured motorist coverage would kick in and take care of damage to his own vehicle. Not the case, as the cyclist, being at fault, was not operating a motor vehicle.

Different scenario.

So yes, your auto policy will likely cover your injuries only (not your bike) if you are struck by an uninsured motorist and the motorist is at fault. If the cyclist is at fault for damage to a vehicle, the cyclist is not considered an uninsured motorist. He may be uninsured (via an auto policy), but he is not a MOTORIST. For this coverage to work, somehow an motorist that is not insured has to be the liable party.

[berserk87]

The OP should check with their automobile insurance agent.

Typically, when a cyclist is involved with a car in an accident, the cyclist's CAR INSURANCE will cover the cyclist BECAUSE A CAR WAS INVOLVED.

At least that's how it works in Connecticut. I ought to know; I've been hit 3 times.

So if the OP has automobile insurance that covers in this instance, they'd only be responsible for their deductible.

It won't hurt for them to contact their agent.

BUT missing here is the key point - the CAR has to be at fault for the CYCLIST's damages for this to happen.

A cyclist causing damage to a car would not find liability coverage via the cyclist's auto policy because the policy covers damage caused by a MOTOR VEHICLE.

It gets confusing and the coverage does not work symmetrically as you would expect.

[berserk87]

This is the course of action I have taken. I know I'm at fault by law but I definitely feel the need to contest liability. I do not believe that I am fully liable. Because the damages are not over $10K no lawyer is willing to represent me in the case. :fight: So I've just been going back and forth with the insurance company. Feeling like a sitting duck as the case progresses.

Another option you might have, and it is not one without consequence, is to declare bankruptcy if faced with a judgement that you cannot repay. Again, not to be taken lightly as bankruptcy comes with its own issues. You may decide that the aftershock of a bankruptcy is not worth it.

Negotiating with the insurance company is good idea, particularly if you will have difficulty in paying them back and you have an argument to offset liability to their driver somewhat. They would sooner get some type of recovery than none at all. In addition, they will not demand repayment all at once. Typically they work out a payment plan that you can accommodate if you are willing to repay them.

I feel badly for you as this is a tough scenario. I hope things work out for you.

[bicycletricycle]

Also, I have been in small claims/traffic court a couple times and if you can't afford the judgement the judge often times works out a payment schedule.

Not sure how this would work in your case if it came to that, if you are a student and genuinely can't afford it than what choice will the insurance company have but to accept a payment plan of some kind.

[oldpotatoe]

Also, I have been in small claims/traffic court a couple times and if you can't afford the judgement the judge often times works out a payment schedule.

Not sure how this would work in your case if it came to that, if you are a student and genuinely can't afford it than what choice will the insurance company have but to accept a payment plan of some kind.

They could 'sue' the guy..not sure what would come of it..AND depending on how 'dependent' he might be, sue his parents. Could get ugly, since the OP was the 'guilty' party.

My son had a similar instance, but he was in a car. Right turn, into merge lane..car in front started to turn into lane, son looked for traffic, guy in front stopped(for no reason, it seemed, no traffic) and son hit him from behind..YES extenuating circumstances, and yes, son got ticket and MY insurance(he was on my policy) paid for his damage.

[bicycletricycle]

Also, I have seen people start go fund me campaigns for a lot of stuff. Perhaps a go fund me hitting up friends and family can help, your fault or not, it sounds like you made an honest mistake and if you are in financial difficulty because of it then some people may be inclined to give you a hand.

I have had similar things to this happen to me, if at all possible I just ride away, the one time I did stop because to me it was super clear that it was not my fault I was still found at fault, even after the driver admitted at the scene that it was their fault. Luckily the damage to that automobile was small.

I guess what I am saying is that it would be easy for this to happen to most of us here, and for those of us without insurance or a pile of money around it can turn into a huge problem. For that reason some people here might also be willing to help as well. Like a pay it forward sort of thing.

[betahprod]

Also, I have been in small claims/traffic court a couple times and if you can't afford the judgement the judge often times works out a payment schedule.

Not sure how this would work in your case if it came to that, if you are a student and genuinely can't afford it than what choice will the insurance company have but to accept a payment plan of some kind.

Unfortunately Liberty Mutual doesn't seem to be willing to accept any form of payment but payment in full. Talking to a lawyer they stated that I am on the defensive and pursuing small claims court isn't necessary. Again, I'm a sitting duck waiting for the insurance company to file something on a larger scale against me once they realize I can't and won't pay. I literally don't have the funds to pay this off and I have informed the company but as my lawyer told me, "Insurance companies have no heart."

[betahprod]

Another option you might have, and it is not one without consequence, is to declare bankruptcy if faced with a judgement that you cannot repay. Again, not to be taken lightly as bankruptcy comes with its own issues. You may decide that the aftershock of a bankruptcy is not worth it.

Negotiating with the insurance company is good idea, particularly if you will have difficulty in paying them back and you have an argument to offset liability to their driver somewhat. They would sooner get some type of recovery than none at all. In addition, they will not demand repayment all at once. Typically they work out a payment plan that you can accommodate if you are willing to repay them.

I feel badly for you as this is a tough scenario. I hope things work out for you.

I heard about the bankruptcy option but my main objective is to reduce the fee which I plan to work off in the summer, but more importantly to make sure my credit isn't destroyed. It's ridiculous to think I'll be working full time throughout the entire summer at two job just to pay this off. Ultimately, I'm trying to protect my credit!

[djg21]

You are incorrect - in your case you were a cyclist hit by an at-fault MOTORIST. This coverage would extend to you if the Uninsured/Underinsured motor vehicle driver is at fault.

In the OP's case, someone stated that the OP, as a cyclist, would be considered an uninsured motorist and that the driver's uninsured motorist coverage would kick in and take care of damage to his own vehicle. Not the case, as the cyclist, being at fault, was not operating a motor vehicle.

Different scenario.

So yes, your auto policy will likely cover your injuries only (not your bike) if you are struck by an uninsured motorist and the motorist is at fault. If the cyclist is at fault for damage to a vehicle, the cyclist is not considered an uninsured motorist. He may be uninsured (via an auto policy), but he is not a MOTORIST. For this coverage to work, somehow an motorist that is not insured has to be the liable party.

I don't disagree. I think I was taking issue with an assertions that a driver's SUM wouldn't apply if the driver was in a collision with an underinsured, rather than uninsured, vehicle, or if the driver was not driving his/her car.