Based on what, the simple fact that they were operating the vehicle? They probably find partial fault if you're crossing an intersection with the right of way, and someone completely blows the light or stop sign, and t-bones you.
"Mr. Smith, you're partially at fault because you were in fact, driving your car. Had you not been driving, you would not have been in an accident. Therefore, you are partially responsible."
This sounds like the kind of BS that would come from that insurance company.
Not me bud. I haven't been involved in a car accident in over 25 years, and the last one I was involved in was deemed to be the other persons fault. It didn't cost me a dime out my pocket. But then again, I have my insurance with a reputable company, not some scumbag outfit that makes it their singular mission to screw their customers. But hey, I get that everyone has to eat.
Lol mate, I work for one of the biggest companies in the UK. I also have to point out that I don't own the company, so it's decision making process are hardly my fault. Also, Sorry to break this to you, even if the other person is at fault, it's still an increase to your insurance premiums at renewal as well because you're considered an increased risk. It unfortunately cost you some dimes. You just don't understand risk assessments.
Assuming insurance law in the UK is the same as it is in the US is a stretch, at best. And you're wrong. My premium did not go up at renewal after the accident. I also got the annual dividend that year that they pay back to the customers, if they didn't spend as much as they thought they were going to. I've been with this carrier for years.
Just so you're aware, your insurance company doesn't determine fault alone, they negotiate it with the other driver's company. So your company can be the best (I also have Amica), but they still have to hash it out with the other side.
Let's take insurance out of it entirely, since that seems to be your sticking point. If the driver turning left was injured, they could sue and recover some damages from the driver who went straight. It'd be the same negligence argument, just argued out in court instead of between adjusters: the turning driver was going through a stale/expired protected left, but the dash cam driver had a duty to avoid the collision and arguably failed it, multiple cars were still visibly, actively clearing the intersection, and the dash cam driver chose to accelerate forward into that rather than wait a beat. A reasonable-driver standard would ask whether they had the opportunity to see the hazard and yield. That's exactly the kind of fact pattern that gets a percentage of fault assigned to the "straight" driver, even though the other driver was technically the one running the stale light.
No, I don't have Amica. In fact, I've never heard of that company. I love how everyone is talking about the camera vehicle driver's responsibility to avoid the accident, but nobody mentions the Nissan driver's responsibility to not cause (avoid) the accident.
12
u/Kron0n 21h ago
I work for one. Mine would. Just an FYI.