Totalled Car

[hkshooter]

Yes, because labor rates are EXACTLY the same from shop to shop and across regions of the country. So the shop rate in central indiana is exactly what the shop rate in New York City would be.

I admit, I never even considered that.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Too40gawlf]

He also mentioned the other car was going faster than it should have been. I'm sure the police were there and a report was filed. Let's just as OP who the police found to be at fault.

 

Yes, because the driver who caused an accident would not twist the facts to negate his liability. My first job out of college was as an adjuster for an insurance company and wouldnt you know it? EVERY SINGLE left turner said the other guy was going too fast. Most of the time it was BS. And even when it wasnt, the state law that I worked in at the time (CA) was such that if you were turning left it was YOUR responsibility to clear the intersection regardless of if the guy coming at you was driving a 800 cc 3 wheeled euro car or piloting a Saturn V rocket.

 

Also, a police report is not the end all be all of what an insurance company uses to determine liability. In many big cities, the police wont even come out to a vehicle accident unless there is an injury, much less make a report.

 

In addition, guess what? If I chamber a round into my rifle prior to handing it to you and you proceed to take it and negligently discharge a round into your head, who's fault is that? I shouldnt have handed you a condition 1 rifle, but YOU violated 2 of the weapons safety rules and ultimately you are LIABLE for the NEGLIGENT discharge. It is incumbent on you to point the weapon in a safe direction and incumbent on you to keep your finger straight and off the trigger until ready to fire.

 

In automotive terms a similar example is if grandma is going 45 mph and hour on a 55 mph road and randomly slams on the brakes and you rear end her. Who do you think is at fault? You are because it is incumbent on you to leave enough room to follow so that you may stop in time.

 

Therefore, YOU are responsible for:

 

-safely handling the rifle

-leaving enough distance to follow

-clearing the intersection

[slk5060]

Well this thread sure went off the rails quick

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Too40gawlf]

Well this thread sure went off the rails quick

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How so? We are discussing the extend of the damages and the liability involved from the information OP gave about an accident. Everything being discussed is germane to the OP.

[MilesA]

How so? We are discussing the extend of the damages and the liability involved from the information OP gave about an accident. Everything being discussed is germane to the OP.

I'm not sure the OP needs to be nailed to the wall at this time. Let the cops figure out who is at fault. We don't need to be judge and/or jury for the OP. Are you a lawyer, you kind of sound like some of the uptight lawyers I know from NOVA.

[Too40gawlf]

I'm not sure the OP needs to be nailed to the wall at this time. Let the cops figure out who is at fault. We don't need to be judge and/or jury for the OP. Are you a lawyer, you kind of sound like some of the uptight lawyers I know from NOVA.

 

You should ride a motorcycle ever day for a month and you will develop a burning passion for negligent left turners - who as it turns out kill thousands of motorcyclists every year.

 

And no, not a lawyer, although I play one on the internet.

 

Lastly, we will be moving out of Norther Virginia and to the midwest, where my wife's from, later this year. Ive suffered Northern Virginia for many years for the sake of a paycheck and hopefully, that changes this year.

[slk5060]

Ive suffered Northern Virginia for many years for the sake of a paycheck and hopefully, that changes this year.

 

 

Preach. 4ish years down there was way more than enough for me

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MilesA]

...Lastly, we will be moving out of Norther Virginia and to the midwest, where my wife's from, later this year. Ive suffered Northern Virginia for many years for the sake of a paycheck and hopefully, that changes this year.

I can understand that, I hope to relocate soon, also. Sorry, did not mean to be harsh.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Yes, because the driver who caused an accident would not twist the facts to negate his liability. My first job out of college was as an adjuster for an insurance company and wouldnt you know it? EVERY SINGLE left turner said the other guy was going too fast. Most of the time it was BS. And even when it wasnt, the state law that I worked in at the time (CA) was such that if you were turning left it was YOUR responsibility to clear the intersection regardless of if the guy coming at you was driving a 800 cc 3 wheeled euro car or piloting a Saturn V rocket.

 

Also, a police report is not the end all be all of what an insurance company uses to determine liability. In many big cities, the police wont even come out to a vehicle accident unless there is an injury, much less make a report.

 

In addition, guess what? If I chamber a round into my rifle prior to handing it to you and you proceed to take it and negligently discharge a round into your head, who's fault is that? I shouldnt have handed you a condition 1 rifle, but YOU violated 2 of the weapons safety rules and ultimately you are LIABLE for the NEGLIGENT discharge. It is incumbent on you to point the weapon in a safe direction and incumbent on you to keep your finger straight and off the trigger until ready to fire.

 

In automotive terms a similar example is if grandma is going 45 mph and hour on a 55 mph road and randomly slams on the brakes and you rear end her. Who do you think is at fault? You are because it is incumbent on you to leave enough room to follow so that you may stop in time.

 

Therefore, YOU are responsible for:

 

-safely handling the rifle

-leaving enough distance to follow

-clearing the intersection

 

like it or not speed of the driver whom he pulled out in front of does have an impact on who is at fault.... you are speeding and it can be proven when you hit someone that pulls out in front of you...guess what? contributing factor to said accident...

[Too40gawlf]

like it or not speed of the driver whom he pulled out in front of does have an impact on who is at fault.... you are speeding and it can be proven when you hit someone that pulls out in front of you...guess what? contributing factor to said accident...

 

Like it or not, state laws vary and in my experience, the speed of the driver with right of way is irrelevant. Especially when the speeding is alleged by the driver who is at fault.

[The Grey Goose]

Well this thread was fun and really productive OP, to answer your actual question, I would stick with another Legacy if your car ends up being totaled. These are some great cars! I'd likely get a 3.6 next time though

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Like it or not, state laws vary and in my experience, the speed of the driver with right of way is irrelevant. Especially when the speeding is alleged by the driver who is at fault.

 

wrong, please try again... if you are doing 50 in a 30 and you hit someone turning left and there are witnesses that state that they believe you were speeding, you are going to bear some of that responsibility like it or not.... just because you don't think that is the case, does not make it any less true. Same can be said if you dart out into the next lane over to avoid rear ending someone only to have some one rear end you...witnesses will own you in that case.

 

As for the OP, the car LOOKS repairable but the ultimate factor will be determined by the amount of hidden damage that the car has sustained and that is impossible to tell by the single photo received

 

at a min you are going to need

 

rear bumper cover

rear quarter

rear strut assembly

some various suspension pieces

rear sub frame assembly

trunk lid work

airbags that deployed (IMHO this will make or break you if the repair total outside of this is close to the limit)

 

Good luck with that....

[Too40gawlf]

wrong, please try again... if you are doing 50 in a 30 and you hit someone turning left and there are witnesses that state that they believe you were speeding, you are going to bear some of that responsibility like it or not.... just because you don't think that is the case, does not make it any less true. Same can be said if you dart out into the next lane over to avoid rear ending someone only to have some one rear end you...witnesses will own you in that case.

.

 

Lol. The funny thing about the internet is people like you can spout off about stuff they dont have any real world knowledge of and claim authority. I was going to respond in a deferential manner, assuming you had some experience in the industry but I re-read what you wrote and its clear to me you dont.

 

Now, admitting that state laws vary through all the 50 different states + US territories, I will give you my assessment of the situation based on actual experience...

 

If INSURED B (insured by Company B) and INSURED A (insured by Company A) are traveling in opposite directions of a road and INSURED B decides to make a left turn, INSURED B MUST, MUST, MUST ensure that the intersection is clear prior to initiating his turn. If INSURED A is traveling N and INSURED B while facing S, makes a turn in front of him, causing a vehicle collision, INSURED B IS AT FAULT.

 

In the theoretical that you posited, where witness(es) claim INSURED A was speeding, the liability adjuster for Company A will read the statements and attribute 100% liability against INSURED B. The liability adjuster for Company B will read the statements, and if he is a weasel, he will try to place 10-25% liability on INSURED A. Meaning Company B will pay 75% of INSURED A's damages and and all of INSURED B's damages. Company A will then take the claim to arbitration and the arbitrator will read the facts of the case, dismiss the fact that 'witnesses' are not recognized or credentialed experts and cannot be counted to know their ass from a hole in the ground and will then attribute 100% liability on INSURED B. Ultimately, Company B will end up paying 100% of INSURED A's damages and be out the hundreds of dollars they spent in man hours preparing for arbitration.

 

That's how it works in the real world, regardless of what your feels make you think.

 

Now in exceptional cases where there is a very high dollar amount or civil tort, or even criminal action where data is pulled from the cars involved and it can be proven that INSURED A was egregiously exceeding the speed limit, then a reasonable argument for shared liability might be made. But if INSURED A was going 48 in a 40 and some moron turned in front of him, then INSURED A is 0% liable or negligent.

[xelu01]

Learning a lot from this thread. Spoke to adjuster, he says just from external looks the cost will be around 5500. He says 9/10 more damages inside, so it will cost more. I signed the form for the shop to work on it. So they will repair it now but will they total it since I signed it to the shop to work on it if there are more damages? Thanks everyone for helping me out.

[bearcat]

I had a girl pull out in front of me Friday and they have found her 100% at fault but the damage is in the album below and the car seemed to be stuck in neutral. Car performed great and everyone in the accident was ok.

 

http://albums.phanfare.com/mt.ashx?c=http%3a%2f%2falbums.phanfare.com%2fisolated%2fWXE4I1aG%2f1%2f14447610&mc=a7QopL2FutERgSEcEFAckvua

 

Too40gawlf is correct the left turner is almost always automatically at fault and it's been through the court system up to most state supreme courts.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Lol. The funny thing about the internet is people like you can spout off about stuff they dont have any real world knowledge of and claim authority. I was going to respond in a deferential manner, assuming you had some experience in the industry but I re-read what you wrote and its clear to me you dont.

 

Now, admitting that state laws vary through all the 50 different states + US territories, I will give you my assessment of the situation based on actual experience...

 

If INSURED B (insured by Company B) and INSURED A (insured by Company A) are traveling in opposite directions of a road and INSURED B decides to make a left turn, INSURED B MUST, MUST, MUST ensure that the intersection is clear prior to initiating his turn. If INSURED A is traveling N and INSURED B while facing S, makes a turn in front of him, causing a vehicle collision, INSURED B IS AT FAULT.

 

In the theoretical that you posited, where witness(es) claim INSURED A was speeding, the liability adjuster for Company A will read the statements and attribute 100% liability against INSURED B. The liability adjuster for Company B will read the statements, and if he is a weasel, he will try to place 10-25% liability on INSURED A. Meaning Company B will pay 75% of INSURED A's damages and and all of INSURED B's damages. Company A will then take the claim to arbitration and the arbitrator will read the facts of the case, dismiss the fact that 'witnesses' are not recognized or credentialed experts and cannot be counted to know their ass from a hole in the ground and will then attribute 100% liability on INSURED B. Ultimately, Company B will end up paying 100% of INSURED A's damages and be out the hundreds of dollars they spent in man hours preparing for arbitration.

 

That's how it works in the real world, regardless of what your feels make you think.

 

Now in exceptional cases where there is a very high dollar amount or civil tort, or even criminal action where data is pulled from the cars involved and it can be proven that INSURED A was egregiously exceeding the speed limit, then a reasonable argument for shared liability might be made. But if INSURED A was going 48 in a 40 and some moron turned in front of him, then INSURED A is 0% liable or negligent.

 

talk about internet know it all...

 

Obviously you have not dealt with accidents where there are not so clear cut options like you seem to think there are... I spelled it out for you and yet you still refuse to see it. Why don't you go talk to a police officer and see how that works out for you. They can and will tell you that they will assign blame based upon speed and other factors (been there twice where another person was speeding and caused an accident and I was witness to it)

 

first time dude was moving twice as fast as traffic, guy pulls out into first lane, guy weaved around a semi tractor and passed car on right and slammed into him. 100% his fault based upon four of us telling the officer what he did.

 

second time guy jumps out of exit lane back onto freeway after speeding down it to cut the line causing the guy behind him to jam up the brakes hard due to his stopping distance being shortened significantly, I stopped in time, the guy behind me darted out to the left and a white grand am took his place coming from the lane to the right of me and rear ended me, another driver rear ended her. thanks to the testimony of 3 people (myself included), the white grand am driver was at fault. Now according to your logic, the person at the end would have been and that is true if there were not witnesses to give testimony to what actually happened.

 

Might want to get out of that there office bub.

[upstater]

I had a girl pull out in front of me Friday and they have found her 100% at fault but the damage is in the album below and the car seemed to be stuck in neutral. Car performed great and everyone in the accident was ok.

 

http://albums.phanfare.com/mt.ashx?c=http%3a%2f%2falbums.phanfare.com%2fisolated%2fWXE4I1aG%2f1%2f14447610&mc=a7QopL2FutERgSEcEFAckvua

 

Too40gawlf is correct the left turner is almost always automatically at fault and it's been through the court system up to most state supreme courts.

 

wow that damage will buff out, can't be more than $1,500, ammi right?

 

In any case, gotta love posts where people that are wrong double down constantly on their opinions.

[YeuEmMaiMai]

gotta love posts where people think that there are never any mitigating circumstances

[bearcat]

gotta love posts where people think that there are never any mitigating circumstances

 

 

That's why I said almost always, no matter the rule there is always an exception. I will say that there has to be supporting evidence for the eyewitness testimony, you can't just have 4 friends that were driving behind you making crap up that can't be substantiated.

[bearcat]

wow that damage will buff out, can't be more than $1,500, ammi right?

 

In any case, gotta love posts where people that are wrong double down constantly on their opinions.

 

 

Totally correct

[Too40gawlf]

Totally correct

 

Dang, glad youre OK. Sucks for the car - on that one I can say with confidence, its totalled.

[Too40gawlf]

talk about internet know it all...

 

Obviously you have not dealt with accidents where there are not so clear cut options like you seem to think there are... I spelled it out for you and yet you still refuse to see it. Why don't you go talk to a police officer and see how that works out for you. They can and will tell you that they will assign blame based upon speed and other factors (been there twice where another person was speeding and caused an accident and I was witness to it)

 

first time dude was moving twice as fast as traffic, guy pulls out into first lane, guy weaved around a semi tractor and passed car on right and slammed into him. 100% his fault based upon four of us telling the officer what he did.

 

second time guy jumps out of exit lane back onto freeway after speeding down it to cut the line causing the guy behind him to jam up the brakes hard due to his stopping distance being shortened significantly, I stopped in time, the guy behind me darted out to the left and a white grand am took his place coming from the lane to the right of me and rear ended me, another driver rear ended her. thanks to the testimony of 3 people (myself included), the white grand am driver was at fault. Now according to your logic, the person at the end would have been and that is true if there were not witnesses to give testimony to what actually happened.

 

Might want to get out of that there office bub.

 

You dont understand what you're talking about and its clear that you've never worked in the industry. Instead of arguing with people that have or that have familiarity with the case law, you are spouting off on stuff you barely have any knowledge.

 

The reason the white grand am was at fault was because he rear ended you. I guarantee you that the grand am's insurance company found the driver who rear ended him to be at fault for the damages he received in the rear and so on an so forth down the line.

 

There is such a thing as 'control of a lane'. Even if a car 'darts' out in front of you, if they control the lane and you hit them dead on in the rear, it is absolutely 100% your fault. The more the damage to the car is to the side, the greater the amount of contributing liability that is shared. But when we commonly say 'rear end' I mean a straight on impact - meaning that the car had control of the lane prior to it being hit.

 

You may think you are making some type of reasoned argument, but what you are really doing is exposing yourself and the yawning chasm of knowledge and experience which your drag around regarding this subject.

 

This is tantamount to me going to a aeronautical engineering forum and arguing with people that design aircraft parts because Ive been on a couple of flights that had heavy turbulence.

[dgoodhue]

Lol. The funny thing about the internet is people like you can spout off about stuff they dont have any real world knowledge of and claim authority. I was going to respond in a deferential manner, assuming you had some experience in the industry but I re-read what you wrote and its clear to me you dont.

 

Now, admitting that state laws vary through all the 50 different states + US territories, I will give you my assessment of the situation based on actual experience...

 

If INSURED B (insured by Company B) and INSURED A (insured by Company A) are traveling in opposite directions of a road and INSURED B decides to make a left turn, INSURED B MUST, MUST, MUST ensure that the intersection is clear prior to initiating his turn. If INSURED A is traveling N and INSURED B while facing S, makes a turn in front of him, causing a vehicle collision, INSURED B IS AT FAULT.

 

In the theoretical that you posited, where witness(es) claim INSURED A was speeding, the liability adjuster for Company A will read the statements and attribute 100% liability against INSURED B. The liability adjuster for Company B will read the statements, and if he is a weasel, he will try to place 10-25% liability on INSURED A. Meaning Company B will pay 75% of INSURED A's damages and and all of INSURED B's damages. Company A will then take the claim to arbitration and the arbitrator will read the facts of the case, dismiss the fact that 'witnesses' are not recognized or credentialed experts and cannot be counted to know their ass from a hole in the ground and will then attribute 100% liability on INSURED B. Ultimately, Company B will end up paying 100% of INSURED A's damages and be out the hundreds of dollars they spent in man hours preparing for arbitration.

 

That's how it works in the real world, regardless of what your feels make you think.

 

Now in exceptional cases where there is a very high dollar amount or civil tort, or even criminal action where data is pulled from the cars involved and it can be proven that INSURED A was egregiously exceeding the speed limit, then a reasonable argument for shared liability might be made. But if INSURED A was going 48 in a 40 and some moron turned in front of him, then INSURED A is 0% liable or negligent.

 

What he said is correct. It is the car turn left across oncoming traffic responsibility to make sure it is safe to cross. One would need hard evidence (which is rare) and/or expert testimony to not be ruled at fault.

 

first time dude was moving twice as fast as traffic, guy pulls out into first lane, guy weaved around a semi tractor and passed car on right and slammed into him. 100% his fault based upon four of us telling the officer what he did.

 

second time guy jumps out of exit lane back onto freeway after speeding down it to cut the line causing the guy behind him to jam up the brakes hard due to his stopping distance being shortened significantly, I stopped in time, the guy behind me darted out to the left and a white grand am took his place coming from the lane to the right of me and rear ended me, another driver rear ended her. thanks to the testimony of 3 people (myself included), the white grand am driver was at fault. Now according to your logic, the person at the end would have been and that is true if there were not witnesses to give testimony to what actually happened.

 

Unless I am misunderstanding what you have written, none of those instances are taking a left across oncoming traffic. The two examples you use are people rear ending other drivers, those again are clear cut cases where the driver who rear ends another car is at fault. You are suppose to enough room at all times to safely stop for the vehicle in front. It again is one of the cases where it is very difficult to prove with out hard evidence and/or expert testimony.

[xelu01]

Do you guys think car will be totalled if they find drive shafts damaged or awd or axel damage?

[waldguy]

^^^ it's rarely just one thing. An axle can be replaced, as can a drive shaft. A body panel can be replaced, a frame can be straightened (to some extent). It's the total cost and the feasibility of making the car safe and true that often determines whether the car is written off.