Are my rates going to go up? Parking lot accident (not my fault)

[CrazyKell]

Forum Sponsor

Was traveling down the lane of parked cars when a woman reversed into my right rear quarter panel.
Completely her fault.

Damage estimate at over $4000 (not including rental car, etc.) and could be higher due to unseen damage.

She wanted to see how much it'd be, but given the high amount, she wants to go through insurance. Fine by me.

Will my rates go up now?

 

[VifferFun]

If you are deemed not at fault by your insurer (which seems to be the case), then you will pay no money whatsoever (since your will certainly have a $0 DCPD deductible) and your premium will not (and cannot) increase as a result.

FYI, here are the fault determination rules used by insurance companies:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900668_e.htm

 

[jeffjones]

Alot of parking lot collisions are deemed no-fault which means everyone goes through their own insurance policy, Therefore you will be making a claim through your own insurance, so depending on your insurance company your rates can go up.
I was involved in an accident where I had the right of way and someone went through the stop sign in winter and I slid into them, but being the HTA doesn't apply in parking lots therefore she did not get charged with anything resulting in a no fault accident where I had to repair my front bumper (new bumper $130 and paintedit myself) as I didn't want to make a claim.

 

[turbodish]

Alot of parking lot collisions are deemed no-fault which means everyone goes through their own insurance policy, Therefore you will be making a claim through your own insurance, so depending on your insurance company your rates can go up.
I was involved in an accident where I had the right of way and someone went through the stop sign in winter and I slid into them, but being the HTA doesn't apply in parking lots therefore she did not get charged with anything resulting in a no fault accident where I had to repair my front bumper (new bumper $130 and paintedit myself) as I didn't want to make a claim.

A lot of people get sucked in by misinformation about parking lot crashes (often fed to them by the at-fault driver is a parking lot crash), and as a result end up needlessly taking a financial or convenience hit out of fear of rate increases.

No-fault insurance does not mean what you think it does, whether a crash happens on highway or in parking lot. It just means that your own insurance will handle and pay out your claim regardless who was at fault for the crash. However, deemed fault will still be assigned to one or more drivers involved depending on the circumstances of the crash, and that deemed fault will range from 0% fault on up to 100% fault. If the deemed fault assigned to you in crash is 25% or less, your rates will not be affected.

The person pulling out of a parking spot would be 100% at fault if a crash occurs for not yielding to vehicles already underway. In this case the OP was hit by just such a person. The OP would be 0% at fault, so this would not be an at-fault collision on her record and her rates would not be affected by a claim.

 

[strictlye]

Alot of parking lot collisions are deemed no-fault which means everyone goes through their own insurance policy, Therefore you will be making a claim through your own insurance, so depending on your insurance company your rates can go up.
I was involved in an accident where I had the right of way and someone went through the stop sign in winter and I slid into them, but being the HTA doesn't apply in parking lots therefore she did not get charged with anything resulting in a no fault accident where I had to repair my front bumper (new bumper $130 and paintedit myself) as I didn't want to make a claim.

This is what was explained to me by my insurance agent.

 

[jeffjones]

The person pulling out of a parking spot would be 100% at fault if a crash occurs for not yielding to vehicles already underway. In this case the OP was hit by just such a person. The OP would be 0% at fault, so this would not be an at-fault collision on her record and her rates would not be affected by a claim.

No fault in insurance terms means 50/50.
But what your missing about that statement is there is no HTA in a parking lot. It is very hard to lay 100% blame in parking lot accidents and that is why majority of them are 50% to each driver, which in turn can affect your insurance premiums.
How can they guarentee without a witness that the other driver wasn't pulling into the spot and the OP hit them?
A no fault or 50/50 accident has close to the same effects as a at fault.
I just went through this in the winter and thankfully the repairs were cheap and I did them myself for less then the deductable would have been.
Alot of insurance compaines offer 1st accident forgiveness which means it will have no effect on your insurance.

 

[CrazyKell]

Well given the damage and where I was hit, the insurance agent said she was pretty darn sure I'd be deemed not at fault.

I would've fixed it myself, except I need a complete new quarter panel, the gas cap won't open, the trunk is jammed due to where it was hit, and the estimate is over $4000. Even if my insurance went up, I'd be better off going through them.

 

[turbodish]

No fault in insurance terms means 50/50.

You're propagating ignorance when you make such a factually-incorrect claim. Your claim does not even come close to describing the functional definition of "no-fault" insurance in Ontario.

But what your missing about that statement is there is no HTA in a parking lot. It is very hard to lay 100% blame in parking lot accidents and that is why majority of them are 50% to each driver, which in turn can affect your insurance premiums.

Deemed fault for insurance purposes does not fall under the HTA. It falls under the Insurance Act of Ontario. That law does cover parking lot collisions. While many collision situations whether highway or parking lot will end up assigning 50-50 deem fault, many others do not.

This is Ontario LAW when it comes to determining deemed fault for insurance purposes. Look up the section pertaining to parking lots. It's not just there for decoration. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-668/latest/rro-1990-reg-668.html

How can they guarentee without a witness that the other driver wasn't pulling into the spot and the OP hit them?

How can they determine who did what out on the highway without a witness? The nature of the damage to each vehicle will often provide a strong indication of what happened. Insurance determination also follows civil law in which "guilt" or "innocence" is determined not beyond a reasonable doubt, but based on a balance of probabilities. A decision can be made on what "probably" happened, and both sides are bound by that.

Besides, who is to say that in a given parking lot collision that there were no witnesses, or no video surveillance that caught the event, or no admission of what happened by the at-fault driver?

A no fault or 50/50 accident has close to the same effects as a at fault.

A 50-50 accident DOES have the same effect as an at-fault crash as far as insurance is concerned. That's not at issue. What's at issue is your claim that no-fault means 50-50 fault or that parking lot crashes are somehow automatically 50-50 fault.

I just went through this in the winter and thankfully the repairs were cheap and I did them myself for less then the deductable would have been.
Alot of insurance compaines offer 1st accident forgiveness which means it will have no effect on your insurance.

If you're not deemed at fault for a crash, you do not pay any deductible at all to fix your car.

First accident forgiveness applies to crashes where you are deemed more than 25% at fault. If you're deemed 25% at fault or not at fault at all, you don't "use up" any part of that first crash forgiveness.

If you're not deemed more than 25% at fault, there's no point in trying to "avoid" an insurance increase by back-dooring your own repairs. All that does is help the at-fault party, not you. In fact, it puts you at considerable risk of the other party walking away or refusing to pay the full cost of repairs, including any hidden damages not noticeable until the car is already apart, or paying for a rental car while your vehicle is in being fixed.

 

[jeffjones]

You're propagating ignorance when you make such a factually-incorrect claim. Your claim does not even come close to describing the functional definition of "no-fault" insurance in Ontario.

When I said "No-fault" as in it was an accident and both parties are 50% liable, which is thesame as a At fault insurance wise.

Deemed fault for insurance purposes does not fall under the HTA. It falls under the Insurance Act of Ontario. That law does cover parking lot collisions. While many collision situations whether highway or parking lot will end up assigning 50-50 deem fault, many others do not.

I was just going by experience as when I had my accident the insurance company asked if the girl had gotten charged with running a stop sign as they would use that to determine fault and the police officer did not as he couldn't because the HTA did not apply in the parking lot.

This is Ontario LAW when it comes to determining deemed fault for insurance purposes. Look up the section pertaining to parking lots. It's not just there for decoration. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-668/latest/rro-1990-reg-668.html

But then again that only has 2 examples

How can they determine who did what out on the highway without a witness? The nature of the damage to each vehicle will often provide a strong indication of what happened. Insurance determination also follows civil law in which "guilt" or "innocence" is determined not beyond a reasonable doubt, but based on a balance of probabilities. A decision can be made on what "probably" happened, and both sides are bound by that.

Besides, who is to say that in a given parking lot collision that there were no witnesses, or no video surveillance that caught the event, or no admission of what happened by the at-fault driver?

I understand they go with the most probable scenario as if they went beyond a reasonable doubt it may never get settled.

A 50-50 accident DOES have the same effect as an at-fault crash as far as insurance is concerned. That's not at issue. What's at issue is your claim that no-fault means 50-50 fault or that parking lot crashes are somehow automatically 50-50 fault.

I guess I must reword my No-fault as 50/50 as that is what I meant as No-fault.

If you're not deemed at fault for a crash, you do not pay any deductible at all to fix your car.

I know this as I just went through this when someone backed into my motorcycle.

First accident forgiveness applies to crashes where you are deemed more than 25% at fault. If you're deemed 25% at fault or not at fault at all, you don't "use up" any part of that first crash forgiveness.

If you're not deemed more than 25% at fault, there's no point in trying to "avoid" an insurance increase by back-dooring your own repairs. All that does is help the at-fault party, not you. In fact, it puts you at considerable risk of the other party walking away or refusing to pay the full cost of repairs, including any hidden damages not noticeable until the car is already apart, or paying for a rental car while your vehicle is in being fixed.

I never said you should backdoor repair your vehicle if the other person is at fault, I did that as my accident was a 50/50 and my only damage to my truck was a cracked bumper and I could repair it myself for cheaper then the deductable and I did not have to make a cliam through my insurance.

I think the problem here is by the looks of it I misused words and they were disected. I was just explaining my experiences with dealing with accidents.

 

[TorontoBoy]

...The person pulling out of a parking spot would be 100% at fault if a crash occurs for not yielding to vehicles already underway. In this case the OP was hit by just such a person. The OP would be 0% at fault, so this would not be an at-fault collision on her record and her rates would not be affected by a claim.

+1 The driver of the car pulling out of the parking spot will be deemed 100% at fault, according to Ontario insurance fault determination rules 16.4

16 (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).

Parking Lots are very dangerous, especially with the benignly oblivious drivers we have here in Scarborough.

 

[turbodish]

I was just going by experience as when I had my accident the insurance company asked if the girl had gotten charged with running a stop sign as they would use that to determine fault and the police officer did not as he couldn't because the HTA did not apply in the parking lot.

Charges do not need to be laid in order for the other driver to be deemed at fault. You would have been covered under 16.(2) or (3), and the OP under 16.(4), as per the Insurance Act regulations:

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).

​

But then again that only has 2 examples

More than just two. Also, 17.(1) would apply in parking lots:

17. (1) If automobile “A” is parked when it is struck by automobile “B”, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 17 (1).

​

I understand they go with the most probable scenario as if they went beyond a reasonable doubt it may never get settled.

I guess I must reword my No-fault as 50/50 as that is what I meant as No-fault.

I know this as I just went through this when someone backed into my motorcycle.

If someone backs into your motorcycle whether parked or with it running and you still on it, they would be 100% at fault. You could go through your insurance with no repercussions.

I never said you should backdoor repair your vehicle if the other person is at fault, I did that as my accident was a 50/50 and my only damage to my truck was a cracked bumper and I could repair it myself for cheaper then the deductable and I did not have to make a cliam through my insurance.
I think the problem here is by the looks of it I misused words and they were disected. I was just explaining my experiences with dealing with accidents.

Again, if you're deemed not at fault in a collision, there is no deductible charge.

The words "no-fault" were dissected because so many people take "no fault insurance regime" as meaning something greatly different than what it is.

 

[jeffjones]

Again, if you're deemed not at fault in a collision, there is no deductible charge.

The words "no-fault" were dissected because so many people take "no fault insurance regime" as meaning something greatly different than what it is.

I found an aftermarket bumper for $130 and a can of duplicolour and you cant tell the difference as my company told me if I made a claim then I would lose my A+ driving record in which I would maybe lose my motorcycle discount. As soon as they said that I told them I will fix it myself as it was a super cheap repair.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

No fault in insurance terms means 50/50.
But what your missing about that statement is there is no HTA in a parking lot. It is very hard to lay 100% blame in parking lot accidents and that is why majority of them are 50% to each driver, which in turn can affect your insurance premiums.
How can they guarentee without a witness that the other driver wasn't pulling into the spot and the OP hit them?
A no fault or 50/50 accident has close to the same effects as a at fault.
I just went through this in the winter and thankfully the repairs were cheap and I did them myself for less then the deductable would have been.
Alot of insurance compaines offer 1st accident forgiveness which means it will have no effect on your insurance.

Fault in a collision, for purposes of insurance, is determined almost solely through the insurance "Rules of Fault Determination." I suggest that you refer to them. They can be found on the FSCO website. If you are deemed to be any percentage at fault, at all, then you are at fault for purposes of rate increases.

In this case a driver, who is reversing into a live traffic lane, has a duty to ensure that the way is clear.

 

[turbodish]

I found an aftermarket bumper for $130 and a can of duplicolour and you cant tell the difference as my company told me if I made a claim then I would lose my A+ driving record in which I would maybe lose my motorcycle discount. As soon as they said that I told them I will fix it myself as it was a super cheap repair.

Someone at your insurance company led you astray. Your insurance company cannot use a not-at-fault collision claim to change your rates or affect your driving record.

 

[turbodish]

If you are deemed to be any percentage at fault, at all, then you are at fault for purposes of rate increases.

That has changed a little bit not too long ago. Some collision scenarios will assign a driver as being 25% at fault in a crash, but a collision can be used as a risk factor in setting rates only if deemed fault is GREATER than 25%.

 

[jeffjones]

Someone at your insurance company led you astray. Your insurance company cannot use a not-at-fault collision claim to change your rates or affect your driving record.

That has changed a little bit not too long ago. Some collision scenarios will assign a driver as being 25% at fault in a crash, but a collision can be used as a risk factor in setting rates only if deemed fault is GREATER than 25%.

Kind of contradicted yourself there. I was in a 50/50 accident.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

That has changed a little bit not too long ago. Some collision scenarios will assign a driver as being 25% at fault in a crash, but a collision can be used as a risk factor in setting rates only if deemed fault is GREATER than 25%.

Interesting but wouldn't have helped me when I was hit by a taxi, the driver of whom would have been charged with careless, but in which the rules of fault determination found me to be 50% at fault.

 

[turbodish]

Kind of contradicted yourself there. I was in a 50/50 accident.

Were you? What were the circumstances? You said in one case that someone "backed into your motorcycle". In the other you said something about your rear bumper I believe?

The motorcycle sound like a clear 100% for the other driver. The rear bumper, maybe, maybe not depending on what you were doing.

 

[jeffjones]

Were you? What were the circumstances? You said in one case that someone "backed into your motorcycle". In the other you said something about your rear bumper I believe?

The motorcycle sound like a clear 100% for the other driver. The rear bumper, maybe, maybe not depending on what you were doing.

Ahhh I see what you were looking at I forgot I was incorperating 2 scenarios in here.
The truck was in a parking lot were someone went through a stop sign and I slid into them in the winter (that was the bumper).
The bike happened 2 weeks ago someone backed into it but insurance said 0% fault on my behalf and they are cutting a cheque this week.

 

[turbodish]

Ahhh I see what you were looking at I forgot I was incorperating 2 scenarios in here.
The truck was in a parking lot were someone went through a stop sign and I slid into them in the winter (that was the bumper).
The bike happened 2 weeks ago someone backed into it but insurance said 0% fault on my behalf and they are cutting a cheque this week.

Even with the truck, if you were on the main parking lot thoroughfare with nominal right of way and hit someone who went through a stop sign, you should still have been deemed not at fault under Fault Determination Rule 16.(3).

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).

Forum Sponsor