First Time Auto Accident Question on Deductable

RAC50

New Member
2
My situation:

Was involved in an auto accident recently. A women made a left turn in front of me and damaged my vehicle. Police report indicates she was at fault and issued her two summons. Of course her statement is she was not at fault {no witnesses} I went through my policy to get the ball rolling and it turns out we have the same insurance company {Geico}. I pay my $500.00 deductible and my vehicle is fixed. I was told by my claims rep, I was deemed not at fault for the accident and he would working to get my deductible back soon. It was explained they go after her policy even though its the same company. About a week after that conversation, I get a letter from the other person's claim agent that states, "based on the information they have about the accident we do not believe that our insured is legally liable for damages to you vehicle". So with a police report blaming fault and summons issued for being at fault, including the officer stating she was at fault they aren't claiming responsibility? How did they come to that conclusion? Does this mean I wont get my deductible back? I quite don't understand how this investigation works when both parties have the same insurance company. Sounds like Geico is just trying to pawn off not paying me my deductible and a clever way of putting both of us at fault. If anyone has any insight or experience on how this conclusion was made, I would love to here your take on it including, what I should do next to try and retrieve my deductible back. Thank You.
 
It has nothing to do with both of you having Geico. In fact, it would be better for them to declare one of you at fault rather then calling it a mutual incident.

Police reports are usually somewhat meaningless when it comes to fault declarations. Insurance companies do a more thorough examination, which includes the report. Also, she didn't receive a summons for being at fault, it was for something else. Why I say this is the police are usually not witnesses to the accident, they just write up what they are told. If the summons (presumably for a bad turn???) was dismissed, then it is meaningless as well.

Basically, what it sounds like they are saying is that you had a significant contribution to the cause of the accident, making you both liable, and yes, they will pay for the damage, but you pay the deductible.

Chalk this up to 'accidents happen'

Why did they find you partially at fault? Well, I'll assume your statement above is reasonably accurate. She was in your lane when you, with forward momentum, ran into her car. Should she have turned left? No, probably not. Should you collide with an object in your lane? No, probably not.

There was something in her statement that made them believe she was at least somewhat justified in the left turn. For instance, did you just come out of a driveway? Did you have a turn signal on? There are a lot of things that determine intent. Not enough detail here to really know.

Dan
 
She was giving a summons for failure to observe a traffic signal as well as an unregistered vehicle. She made a left turn on a RED left arrow at an intersection when I had the green signal traveling the opposite direction. You can't make a left turn without having a green left turn arrow. It was clear cut as far as I'm concerned and my claims agent told me the decision was made that I wasn't at fault for the accident. I get it, its one word against the other, but when you have a police report stating at fault and summons issued to the at fault driver, I can't see how her claims agent determined she wasn't at fault. The only thing she had was her statement. There was no witness statement or cameras at the intersection to use at evidence. I will have to reach out to my claims agent and see what changed. Thanks Dan
 
Last edited:
If it was me, I'd stay on it until the claim is paid for by HER insurance. It sounds to me like you have everything on your side to "win" that argument. If you don't, it goes as a claim against your insurance and could potentially affect your premiums, etc. in the future. These days everyone wants to say its not their fault, even if it is.
 
Here is what I would do in this situation:

1. Contact GEICO and let them know you dispute their fault determination. Provide them with a written statement (affidavit) and copies of the police report and ask them to reconsider their determination and refund your deductible.

2. If they do to follow through with step 1 or take to long, then I would file a law suit against the other driver in small claims court (since you are looking at $500 deductible) and name GEICO as a defendant as well. At this point, GEICO is going to not want to pay any legal fees, costs, or the time to show up to a small claims court hearing over $500 and they will refund you $500 deductible and you should demand they pay for you small claims court filing fee (they might fight it but will eventually pay it, the fees will be around $150-200 total)

3. If GEICO shows up to small claims court to contest liability on behalf of the other driver, they either have a really strong case, but if the facts as are you suggest... the small claims court judge will rule in your favor and award you with your $500 as well as your costs for the small claims case.

I've seen this happen in similar situations such as this. However, a lot of insurance companies will be willing to work with both insureds when an accident occurs and both are insured by the same company. Seems to be a reason you can save 15% or more with Geico!
 
I agree with what Kelly said. First, appeal it within GEICO. Let them know that you plan to pursue your deductible and related expenses in court. Under the other party's liability coverage, they will likely have an obligation to defend them even if they really believe your claim is without merit.

Once this has been resolved, move your account to an independent agent and let them shop it with multiple carriers for the best coverage at the best price. For the most part, GEICO doesn't save you 15% or more...that's just a marketing ploy that is supposed to represent an agent's commission (as if agents still get 15% auto commissions):

https://insurancecommentary.com/car-insurance-price-shoppers-do-you-really-save-15/

They still have to pay salary and benefits to employees to do what an agent does, but the big difference is that, in contested claims like this, you have no agent to advocate on your behalf. I've worked with good agents for many years who take claim denials like this as a personal afront and will go to the mat for their customers.
 
Back
Top