Parking lot collision - insurance purpose | GTAMotorcycle.com

Parking lot collision - insurance purpose

M

motolady

New member
Forum Sponsor
Hey guys, I need some information related to a parking lot collision.
So I was currently involved in a collision where I believe that I had the right of the way. I have attached an image to this thread where its clearly indicated which direction I was travelling in (black - me) and where the other person (yellow - BMW) was going. I reported it to my insurance and found out 2 days later that the other driver told something else to their insurance company which basically conflicts my story. I have now sent this image to my adjuster, but I'd like to know all of your opinions on this point. Who has the right of the way in here? (there is no stop sign for either one of us)
attachment.php


There are 2 kinds of lanes: THOROUGHFARE LANE and FEEDER LANE
Thoroughfare lane basically has the right of the way - it is a lane that directly exits the parking lot
Feeder lane doesn't have the right of the way and obviously doesn't directly exit the parking lot. It usually connects to a major road in the parking lot in order to exit the parking area.

I know I had the right of the way (black), according to all the research I did about these lanes but I want more opinions from you guys and esp any insurance adjustors to help me understand this more.

I do not want the other person to blame everything on me, I followed the rules of the parking lot meanwhile the other person was speeding because she was late for her meeting. Your opinions will really matter. Thank you guys!
 

Attachments

  • CLAIM # 5030366282(1).jpg
    CLAIM # 5030366282(1).jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 239
Unfortunately, I suspect that given as the other person has now given a conflicting story...unless you have a witness or can get video evidence supporting your side of the story, you'll probably end up being held 50% at fault given the parking lot nature of the accident. That sucks, I know, but I speak from unfortunate experience.

My opinion is not legal counsel, but based on my experience. Consult your lawyer or paralegal. Side effects of taking my statement as legal advice may include temporary tooth loss, unwanted pregnancy, or explosive diarrhea.
 
I thought all parking lot accidents were just considered 50/50 unless you were parked.

There should be an insurance schedule around somewhere.
 
Baggsy said:
I thought all parking lot accidents were just considered 50/50 unless you were parked.
Click to expand...

I thought so too, but when I went to Google it to confirm I found info to the otherwise. Perhaps it's changed...but when it's one persons word against the other with no witnesses, it'll probably end up 50/50 no matter what.
 
I would also expect a 50/50 split between insurance companies in this case would be a best case scenario, since this collision happened on private property where the rules of the road might not necessarily apply.

There is one other thing that I noticed, both roadways look like they could be considered to be thoroughfares as they have curbs and do not have direct access to parking spaces. Should this be the case, then the other driver who was approaching from the right should have had the right-of-way at this uncontrolled intersection. The roadway used by the other driver should have a stop sign to clearly define that it is the secondary approach.

P.S., not a lawyer or traffic engineer.
 
Baggsy said:
I thought all parking lot accidents were just considered 50/50 unless you were parked.

There should be an insurance schedule around somewhere.
Click to expand...

This is what I thought as well. That said, if you had a dashcam, I wonder if that would still be the case (if it was fairly obvious you were less than 50% at fault, or possibly even 0%). Still debating getting one, but that could be the tipping point.
 
Unfortunately for us, we found out that the 50/50 split blame no longer applies, for insurance purposes. The Ontario fault determination rules apply.

Ontario Fault Determination Rules said:
Rules for Automobiles in Parking Lots

16. (1) This section applies with respect to incidents in parking lots. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 16 (1).
(2) The degree of fault of a driver involved in an incident on a thoroughfare shall be determined in accordance with this Regulation as if the thoroughfare were a road. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 16 (2).
(3) If automobile “A” is leaving a feeder lane and fails to yield the right of way to automobile “B” on a thoroughfare, the driver of automobile “A” is 100 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is not at fault for the incident. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 16 (3).
(4) If automobile “A” is leaving a parking space and fails to yield the right of way to automobile “B” on a feeder lane or a thoroughfare, the driver of automobile “A” is 100 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is not at fault for the incident. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 16 (4).
(5) In this section,
“feeder lane” means a road in a parking lot other than a thoroughfare;
“thoroughfare” means a main road for passage into, through or out of a parking lot. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 16 (5).
Click to expand...

Did the other person's lane have a stop sign? The black line does look like the main road going through the parking lot. The yellow line is certainly not the main road. You will need to work with your insurance company on this one.

Regardless of the outcome, the insurance company will rule, and there's not much you can do about it. You could file a protest and it will go to an arbitrator, but that's about it.
 
Last edited:
motolady said:
Hey guys, I need some information related to a parking lot collision.
So I was currently involved in a collision where I believe that I had the right of the way. I have attached an image to this thread where its clearly indicated which direction I was travelling in (black - me) and where the other person (yellow - BMW) was going. I reported it to my insurance and found out 2 days later that the other driver told something else to their insurance company which basically conflicts my story. I have now sent this image to my adjuster, but I'd like to know all of your opinions on this point. Who has the right of the way in here? (there is no stop sign for either one of us)
attachment.php


There are 2 kinds of lanes: THOROUGHFARE LANE and FEEDER LANE
Thoroughfare lane basically has the right of the way - it is a lane that directly exits the parking lot
Feeder lane doesn't have the right of the way and obviously doesn't directly exit the parking lot. It usually connects to a major road in the parking lot in order to exit the parking area.

I know I had the right of the way (black), according to all the research I did about these lanes but I want more opinions from you guys and esp any insurance adjustors to help me understand this more.

I do not want the other person to blame everything on me, I followed the rules of the parking lot meanwhile the other person was speeding because she was late for her meeting. Your opinions will really matter. Thank you guys!
Click to expand...

No, our opinions don't matter at all.
 
conundrum said:
This is what I thought as well. That said, if you had a dashcam, I wonder if that would still be the case (if it was fairly obvious you were less than 50% at fault, or possibly even 0%). Still debating getting one, but that could be the tipping point.
Click to expand...

at this point, You'd need a 360 degree camera running 24/7 to account for all types of collisions. Front only or Front and Back would help your story, but won't mean you won't be found at fault.
 
TorontoBoy said:
Unfortunately for us, we found out that the 50/50 split blame no longer applies, for insurance purposes. The Ontario fault determination rules apply.



Did the other person's lane have a stop sign? The black line does look like the main road going through the parking lot. The yellow line is certainly not the main road. You will need to work with your insurance company on this one.

Regardless of the outcome, the insurance company will rule, and there's not much you can do about it. You could file a protest and it will go to an arbitrator, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

No one had a stop sign there. I was going to exit the parking lot that leads to the main road directly .. the other driver was basically entering a parking lot that cuts through the road I was traveling on. in order for the other driver to exit the parking lot she would have to make a right turn to come on the same road I was traveling on.
 
As I discovered this past June, other people will actually lie to their insurer to lessen their "fault level" in a collision..lol My insurer stated that because there were conflicting stories and I only had the licence plate of an independent witness, (I couldn't write down their plate as I was on my bike even though they offered to be a witness). Insurers can't legally get their contact info from MTO unless they are directly involved in the collision.

Because of the conflicting statements I was determined to be 50% at fault... UNTIL I produced to my insurer small video clips form my rear facing and front cameras on the bike. these clips clearly showed the other driver entering my lane, on the right in an attempt to pass me on the right in a single lane road, just so he could be in front of me. The camera didn't show the actual point of contact but it did show the bike being hit in that the video camera was jarred from the impact.

I had been fighting this for 3 weeks within 15 minutes of my sending the video clips my insurer called back to advise that upon reviewing the clips they were notifying the other insurer their client was 100% at fault and my record was again clean.

So OP I suspect yourgoing to be hit with 50% simply due to the conflicting accounts without a witness This also means if you pay for "accident forgiveness", that option is now used up and unavailable for the next 3 - 7 years depending upon your insurers underwriting rules. If you don't have accident forgiveness your rates will increase at renewal, (even if you go to a new insurer).
 
Baggsy said:
I thought all parking lot accidents were just considered 50/50 unless you were parked.

There should be an insurance schedule around somewhere.
Click to expand...


No.

I've been in an accident exactly as described in my car. It was 0% my fault. Got $5000 worth of repairs on a $7000 car. I paid nothing. You also get a rental for the duration of repairs.
 
Last edited:
hedo2002 said:
As I discovered this past June, other people will actually lie to their insurer to lessen their "fault level" in a collision..lol My insurer stated that because there were conflicting stories and I only had the licence plate of an independent witness, (I couldn't write down their plate as I was on my bike even though they offered to be a witness). Insurers can't legally get their contact info from MTO unless they are directly involved in the collision.

Because of the conflicting statements I was determined to be 50% at fault... UNTIL I produced to my insurer small video clips form my rear facing and front cameras on the bike. these clips clearly showed the other driver entering my lane, on the right in an attempt to pass me on the right in a single lane road, just so he could be in front of me. The camera didn't show the actual point of contact but it did show the bike being hit in that the video camera was jarred from the impact.

I had been fighting this for 3 weeks within 15 minutes of my sending the video clips my insurer called back to advise that upon reviewing the clips they were notifying the other insurer their client was 100% at fault and my record was again clean.

So OP I suspect yourgoing to be hit with 50% simply due to the conflicting accounts without a witness This also means if you pay for "accident forgiveness", that option is now used up and unavailable for the next 3 - 7 years depending upon your insurers underwriting rules. If you don't have accident forgiveness your rates will increase at renewal, (even if you go to a new insurer).
Click to expand...


People that get caught lying like this should have a fraud charge stacked on top of their insurance increase. Scum.
 
unL33T said:
People that get caught lying like this should have a fraud charge stacked on top of their insurance increase. Scum.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it's even worse than that. There is some BS about not charging many people with insurance fraud due to privacy issues and the insurance companies not being able to release info to the police. Craziness.

My mom's car was hit by an old man in a parking lot while she was stationary. His story was she backed into him. It was going 50/50 until the ins company was able to talk with a witness that gave my mom their info. She was found 0% at fault.

I don't think that people realize that even when they lie they end up with an at fault accident on their record as they are more than 25% at fault. The only way to beat it is to have fake witnesses (which lots of the sketchy fraud gangs do).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom