Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
06-19-2007 | 06:20 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
On Jun 19, 3:55 pm, Larry in AZ <usen...@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com>
wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Pete from Boston <masspete@my-
> deja.com> said:
>
> > This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> > I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> > bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> > trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> > won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> > other car hit above it.
>
> > The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> > happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> > to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> > anything ever happened.
>
> You're obviously dealing with a liar who is attempting to evade
> responsibility. That's another crime.
>
> > While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> > anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> > the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> > above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> > the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> > anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> > says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> > damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> > someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> > handwriting if that's the case.
>
> One scenario is that the Pacifica's bumper crumpled, and the damage to
> your car was caused by material ABOVE the Pacifica's bumper. Either that,
> or the Pacifica, if it was hit from behind, lurched upward somehow to hit
> you.
>
> It's all moot if the Pacifica's driver wrote their insurance claim number
> for you. That, in itself, is admisison that the incident happened.
>
> You should be able to wreck that bastard in court, if you can hang out
> long enough...
Unlikely. Out of state, for one. No hard evidence, second. And
lastly their insurance company is unimpressed that I magically have
someone's info without them hitting me.
It was pouring rain and I had a lot on my mind in the post-accident
whirlwind (word to the wise: get in an accident only with a friend in
the car to remind you of these things), and idiot me didn't take
pictures. I will never make that mistake again.
But yes, in the time I kept calling their company and asking if they'd
gotten in touch with them, they kept telling me "they have 30 days to
respond," plenty of time to get their own minor damage repaired. I
kept telling their company this, and then was, of course, not the
least bit surprised when they lied.
wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Pete from Boston <masspete@my-
> deja.com> said:
>
> > This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> > I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> > bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> > trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> > won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> > other car hit above it.
>
> > The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> > happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> > to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> > anything ever happened.
>
> You're obviously dealing with a liar who is attempting to evade
> responsibility. That's another crime.
>
> > While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> > anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> > the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> > above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> > the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> > anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> > says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> > damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> > someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> > handwriting if that's the case.
>
> One scenario is that the Pacifica's bumper crumpled, and the damage to
> your car was caused by material ABOVE the Pacifica's bumper. Either that,
> or the Pacifica, if it was hit from behind, lurched upward somehow to hit
> you.
>
> It's all moot if the Pacifica's driver wrote their insurance claim number
> for you. That, in itself, is admisison that the incident happened.
>
> You should be able to wreck that bastard in court, if you can hang out
> long enough...
Unlikely. Out of state, for one. No hard evidence, second. And
lastly their insurance company is unimpressed that I magically have
someone's info without them hitting me.
It was pouring rain and I had a lot on my mind in the post-accident
whirlwind (word to the wise: get in an accident only with a friend in
the car to remind you of these things), and idiot me didn't take
pictures. I will never make that mistake again.
But yes, in the time I kept calling their company and asking if they'd
gotten in touch with them, they kept telling me "they have 30 days to
respond," plenty of time to get their own minor damage repaired. I
kept telling their company this, and then was, of course, not the
least bit surprised when they lied.
06-19-2007 | 07:50 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
Pete from Boston <masspete@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1182281813.565105.311660@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
You DID exchange insurance and license information?
that alone would be evidence that -something- happened.
Else why would she give you her info?
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
ALWAYS call the police and get a police report filled out.
Cellphone cameras are VERY useful,too. Or if there's a drugstore nearby,
buy a disposable camera and take pix.
regardless of whether she was hit from behind,she still is liable for
damage her vehicle caused to your auto.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:1182281813.565105.311660@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
You DID exchange insurance and license information?
that alone would be evidence that -something- happened.
Else why would she give you her info?
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
ALWAYS call the police and get a police report filled out.
Cellphone cameras are VERY useful,too. Or if there's a drugstore nearby,
buy a disposable camera and take pix.
regardless of whether she was hit from behind,she still is liable for
damage her vehicle caused to your auto.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
06-19-2007 | 07:50 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
Pete from Boston <masspete@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1182281813.565105.311660@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
You DID exchange insurance and license information?
that alone would be evidence that -something- happened.
Else why would she give you her info?
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
ALWAYS call the police and get a police report filled out.
Cellphone cameras are VERY useful,too. Or if there's a drugstore nearby,
buy a disposable camera and take pix.
regardless of whether she was hit from behind,she still is liable for
damage her vehicle caused to your auto.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:1182281813.565105.311660@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
You DID exchange insurance and license information?
that alone would be evidence that -something- happened.
Else why would she give you her info?
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
ALWAYS call the police and get a police report filled out.
Cellphone cameras are VERY useful,too. Or if there's a drugstore nearby,
buy a disposable camera and take pix.
regardless of whether she was hit from behind,she still is liable for
damage her vehicle caused to your auto.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
06-19-2007 | 07:50 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
Pete from Boston <masspete@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1182281813.565105.311660@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
You DID exchange insurance and license information?
that alone would be evidence that -something- happened.
Else why would she give you her info?
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
ALWAYS call the police and get a police report filled out.
Cellphone cameras are VERY useful,too. Or if there's a drugstore nearby,
buy a disposable camera and take pix.
regardless of whether she was hit from behind,she still is liable for
damage her vehicle caused to your auto.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
news:1182281813.565105.311660@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
You DID exchange insurance and license information?
that alone would be evidence that -something- happened.
Else why would she give you her info?
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
ALWAYS call the police and get a police report filled out.
Cellphone cameras are VERY useful,too. Or if there's a drugstore nearby,
buy a disposable camera and take pix.
regardless of whether she was hit from behind,she still is liable for
damage her vehicle caused to your auto.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
06-19-2007 | 09:31 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
Pete from Boston wrote:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
You may be be screwed? If the other party is denying it ever happened
then it's your responsibility to prove that it did. Your 90 Accord is
older than my 92 Civic. Repair the damages to have it pass safety
inspection and move on. We're both driving old cars.
Minor accidents are bad news. Police don't care unless someone is
injured. If you don't have pictures then there is no evidence unless you
have a witness.
Bad insurance companies will always say it wasn't their customer's fault.
Please don't shoot the messenger. That would be me.
--
JD..
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
You may be be screwed? If the other party is denying it ever happened
then it's your responsibility to prove that it did. Your 90 Accord is
older than my 92 Civic. Repair the damages to have it pass safety
inspection and move on. We're both driving old cars.
Minor accidents are bad news. Police don't care unless someone is
injured. If you don't have pictures then there is no evidence unless you
have a witness.
Bad insurance companies will always say it wasn't their customer's fault.
Please don't shoot the messenger. That would be me.
--
JD..
06-19-2007 | 09:31 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
Pete from Boston wrote:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
You may be be screwed? If the other party is denying it ever happened
then it's your responsibility to prove that it did. Your 90 Accord is
older than my 92 Civic. Repair the damages to have it pass safety
inspection and move on. We're both driving old cars.
Minor accidents are bad news. Police don't care unless someone is
injured. If you don't have pictures then there is no evidence unless you
have a witness.
Bad insurance companies will always say it wasn't their customer's fault.
Please don't shoot the messenger. That would be me.
--
JD..
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
You may be be screwed? If the other party is denying it ever happened
then it's your responsibility to prove that it did. Your 90 Accord is
older than my 92 Civic. Repair the damages to have it pass safety
inspection and move on. We're both driving old cars.
Minor accidents are bad news. Police don't care unless someone is
injured. If you don't have pictures then there is no evidence unless you
have a witness.
Bad insurance companies will always say it wasn't their customer's fault.
Please don't shoot the messenger. That would be me.
--
JD..
06-19-2007 | 09:31 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
Pete from Boston wrote:
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
You may be be screwed? If the other party is denying it ever happened
then it's your responsibility to prove that it did. Your 90 Accord is
older than my 92 Civic. Repair the damages to have it pass safety
inspection and move on. We're both driving old cars.
Minor accidents are bad news. Police don't care unless someone is
injured. If you don't have pictures then there is no evidence unless you
have a witness.
Bad insurance companies will always say it wasn't their customer's fault.
Please don't shoot the messenger. That would be me.
--
JD..
> This is starting to feel like a CarTalk puzzle, but here goes:
>
> I got rear-ended recently by a 2005 Chrysler Pacifica that pretty much
> bashed in the rear panel of my 90 Accord beyond reasonable repair. The
> trunk lid seems to have popped out of the way -- though it is bent and
> won't close, it's not crushed -- and the bumper looks fine, as if the
> other car hit above it.
>
> The party who hit me had a bumper on the ground when the accident
> happened, but in the time between then and when they finally responded
> to their insurance company weeks later, they'd replaced it and denied
> anything ever happened.
>
> While there's probably not much I can do to generate actualy proof
> anymore, I am curious about one thing -- their insurance company said
> the Pacifica front bumper was too low to have possibly caused damage
> above my 24-inch-high bumper. I was at a stop, facing downhill, and
> the person who hit me claims she was hit from behind first. Can
> anyone think of how this could have happened? The insurance company
> says it's completely impossible for that car to have caused the
> damage. I can only shrug and say, maybe I was dreaming, but I dreamt
> someone's insurance policy number onto a piece of paper in their
> handwriting if that's the case.
>
You may be be screwed? If the other party is denying it ever happened
then it's your responsibility to prove that it did. Your 90 Accord is
older than my 92 Civic. Repair the damages to have it pass safety
inspection and move on. We're both driving old cars.
Minor accidents are bad news. Police don't care unless someone is
injured. If you don't have pictures then there is no evidence unless you
have a witness.
Bad insurance companies will always say it wasn't their customer's fault.
Please don't shoot the messenger. That would be me.
--
JD..
06-20-2007 | 01:28 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
william1977@gmail.com wrote:
> The police actually have to be dispatched to an accident unless they
> actually saw it happen.
Who said the police were involved at all?
In my town, the police will not come out for a property damage only accident
of 2 cars. This isn't uncommon in cities where they have... crime...
> The police actually have to be dispatched to an accident unless they
> actually saw it happen.
Who said the police were involved at all?
In my town, the police will not come out for a property damage only accident
of 2 cars. This isn't uncommon in cities where they have... crime...
06-20-2007 | 01:28 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
william1977@gmail.com wrote:
> The police actually have to be dispatched to an accident unless they
> actually saw it happen.
Who said the police were involved at all?
In my town, the police will not come out for a property damage only accident
of 2 cars. This isn't uncommon in cities where they have... crime...
> The police actually have to be dispatched to an accident unless they
> actually saw it happen.
Who said the police were involved at all?
In my town, the police will not come out for a property damage only accident
of 2 cars. This isn't uncommon in cities where they have... crime...
06-20-2007 | 01:28 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
william1977@gmail.com wrote:
> The police actually have to be dispatched to an accident unless they
> actually saw it happen.
Who said the police were involved at all?
In my town, the police will not come out for a property damage only accident
of 2 cars. This isn't uncommon in cities where they have... crime...
> The police actually have to be dispatched to an accident unless they
> actually saw it happen.
Who said the police were involved at all?
In my town, the police will not come out for a property damage only accident
of 2 cars. This isn't uncommon in cities where they have... crime...
06-20-2007 | 01:32 AM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
Pete from Boston wrote:
>
> There was a cop there when it happened. I asked for his assistance.
> He said to go away. Seriously. "What should I do?" I asked. "You
> should go back to your car," he replied. "About the accident, I
> mean," he said. "Go back to your car," he said. I may be pursuing
> that situation a little further.
>
> Later, when I called the insurance company and they asked if I called
> the police, I explained what had happened. They asked if I'd gotten
> the other person's info, and said, "Sounds like you did what you
> should have." At the time it didn't occur to me that there was
> anything to be achieved by calling the cops, but only now do I realize
> it would've made some difference.
Ahhh. If the police were there already, did they take a report? Did they
get your info on the report? If so, go to the police station, and request
a copy of the report.
If they didn't take a report, I would certainly talk to the supervisor on
duty at the police station. And it would probably be a good idea to call a
lawyer. If you present proper evidence, they will often take your case on
contingency. Can't hurt to try. Insurance companies push around
individuals without proper representation. They are confident that you do
not know all of your rights. When a lawyer calls, they are much more
likely to fold.
>
> There was a cop there when it happened. I asked for his assistance.
> He said to go away. Seriously. "What should I do?" I asked. "You
> should go back to your car," he replied. "About the accident, I
> mean," he said. "Go back to your car," he said. I may be pursuing
> that situation a little further.
>
> Later, when I called the insurance company and they asked if I called
> the police, I explained what had happened. They asked if I'd gotten
> the other person's info, and said, "Sounds like you did what you
> should have." At the time it didn't occur to me that there was
> anything to be achieved by calling the cops, but only now do I realize
> it would've made some difference.
Ahhh. If the police were there already, did they take a report? Did they
get your info on the report? If so, go to the police station, and request
a copy of the report.
If they didn't take a report, I would certainly talk to the supervisor on
duty at the police station. And it would probably be a good idea to call a
lawyer. If you present proper evidence, they will often take your case on
contingency. Can't hurt to try. Insurance companies push around
individuals without proper representation. They are confident that you do
not know all of your rights. When a lawyer calls, they are much more
likely to fold.
06-20-2007 | 01:32 AM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trying to demonstrate impact on 90 Accord
Pete from Boston wrote:
>
> There was a cop there when it happened. I asked for his assistance.
> He said to go away. Seriously. "What should I do?" I asked. "You
> should go back to your car," he replied. "About the accident, I
> mean," he said. "Go back to your car," he said. I may be pursuing
> that situation a little further.
>
> Later, when I called the insurance company and they asked if I called
> the police, I explained what had happened. They asked if I'd gotten
> the other person's info, and said, "Sounds like you did what you
> should have." At the time it didn't occur to me that there was
> anything to be achieved by calling the cops, but only now do I realize
> it would've made some difference.
Ahhh. If the police were there already, did they take a report? Did they
get your info on the report? If so, go to the police station, and request
a copy of the report.
If they didn't take a report, I would certainly talk to the supervisor on
duty at the police station. And it would probably be a good idea to call a
lawyer. If you present proper evidence, they will often take your case on
contingency. Can't hurt to try. Insurance companies push around
individuals without proper representation. They are confident that you do
not know all of your rights. When a lawyer calls, they are much more
likely to fold.
>
> There was a cop there when it happened. I asked for his assistance.
> He said to go away. Seriously. "What should I do?" I asked. "You
> should go back to your car," he replied. "About the accident, I
> mean," he said. "Go back to your car," he said. I may be pursuing
> that situation a little further.
>
> Later, when I called the insurance company and they asked if I called
> the police, I explained what had happened. They asked if I'd gotten
> the other person's info, and said, "Sounds like you did what you
> should have." At the time it didn't occur to me that there was
> anything to be achieved by calling the cops, but only now do I realize
> it would've made some difference.
Ahhh. If the police were there already, did they take a report? Did they
get your info on the report? If so, go to the police station, and request
a copy of the report.
If they didn't take a report, I would certainly talk to the supervisor on
duty at the police station. And it would probably be a good idea to call a
lawyer. If you present proper evidence, they will often take your case on
contingency. Can't hurt to try. Insurance companies push around
individuals without proper representation. They are confident that you do
not know all of your rights. When a lawyer calls, they are much more
likely to fold.