 鲜花( 2)  鸡蛋( 0)
|
我给保险公司写的信:
@9 ]# W1 t; x) e d$ O) v( H. K* K! B2 @, C. R$ X# }7 U
I would like to clarify the difference between her statement and mine. SHE claims that there is A STOP SIGN in front of me. The fact is there is NO stop or EVEN yield sign at that intersection, as evidenced by the pictures I took from the parking lot where the accident happened. (Please see attached pictures). 1 `7 @* V; B! W
# m- C/ C9 a( G+ k; y& a; sThank you for explaining for me the settlement between two insurance companies. However, the settlement agreement does not help determine whose fault it is based on traffic act or bylaws. Instead, you used a few times "common sense" in your explanation to describe how to handle situations at an uncontrolled intersection. I will be more convinced if the determination is made based on law rather than "common sense".
- B+ Y# c) C6 j# x" `; _
7 Z, K- [5 ?7 l' DFor example, I stop at a STOP SIGN or RED LIGHT, not because my common sense, because the law says so, and I know if I do not comply then I will be punished.
L( c+ d: x5 f: G' a1 j+ @
. X2 V; S+ u c: p& y4 x* h) U8 HThe case is pretty clear if we examine it according to the law. We were both operating our vehicles at an uncontrolled intersection in a parking lot, WITH NO STOP OR YIELD SIGN. I arrived at the intersection first and then accident happened. According to the law or driver guideline, I did nothing wrong. There was no evidence to support that I am100% fault in this case according to the law. $ L8 w7 {( z' o
( C4 h# k' W' G) L# W8 k* a
After accident, I attempted to offer her a cash settlement regardless the fault determination, because I feel bad about her car. However, she believed that she were the only victim in this case, so she insisted that I should cover all cost to repair her car. So I had to get insurance involved.( y) m) f6 W# r% G5 J% ]" j- ^. ?
8 ~" O" ?. h9 d7 ^$ y
My question is "how do we determine which lane is the main road in a parking lot, if there is no signs at all. Do we judge because there are cars moving in that lane? Maybe the only thing I did wrong was that I did not call the police right away. And that is because she is from Calgary and she wanted to go home. Plus, we blocked traffic while there were many cars waiting in the lane, and her car did not seem to be seriously damaged. So we exchanged information and drove away.
z7 J) G: i& R- v3 \0 b3 q" m1 r% J/ v0 }9 ~" r$ ?# u9 {
In a nutshell, I don't think I should take full responsibility for the accident. If whatever party believes I do, they need to provide evidence according to the law.
2 P, g' ? F# `, H7 c6 h2 _; z0 |$ p) s& h# U! o
1 z9 T! }1 R7 D3 n
保险公司的回复:9 t5 W, _ c t: |1 M& O
! E% h8 ]) G$ ?: r
It doesn’t matter that she says there is a stop sign when there is not; she still has the right of way, even if she is mistaken about the existence of a sign. And the rules that the insurance companies are bound by, set out by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, is what determines the fault, as I stated. We are bound by those rules, and if didn’t accept fault in this case, the other insurance company would take us to the Insurance Bureau’s arbitration panel, and we would lose. We have no argument in our favor, based on the claims agreement we are bound by. It doesn’t matter who arrived at the intersection first, right of way is not always determined by that. If there is no applicable rule in the IBC agreement, then rules of the road apply, and this would be considered a neutral intersection. But there IS an applicable rule for parking lots. You ask how to determine the main road in a parking lot; as I quoted from the IBC agreement, “a portion of a public parking lot, designated by the property owners or by its configuration as a “thoroughfare” shall have a right of way”. The configuration of this lot lends itself to her lane being the main one. You mentioned you should have called police; police would not have attended such a minor incident, and even if they did, they do not determine fault for insurance companies because they do not know the rules in the claims agreement. Sometimes they charge somebody with a traffic charge, and yet based on insurance, the other party is actually at fault. Example; 2 vehicles coming towards each other; one turns left across the path of the other, the left turning vehicle is at fault, even if the other driver got a ticket for disobeying a traffic signal (for gunning it through the yellow instead of slowing and preparing to stop). Or 1 driver rear ends another, and the front vehicle turns out to be drunk; he gets charged with drunk driving, but is not at fault for the accident, the driver who hit him from behind is at fault. My point about common sense was only to point out that if the two of you were in each other’s position, would you have felt you that the car coming out of the aisle, that suddenly pulled out in front of you, was not at fault; and you, driving on the road in front of the door, were at fault?
- g' z& z' `! x4 b( ~0 RYour insurance company settles the fault based on the circumstances that match the IBC claims agreement and in this case, she has the right of way, putting you at fault; unfortunately it doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. There is no dispute as to what actually happened, the facts speak for themselves. The other driver does not need to prove anything as the layout of the parking lot speaks for itself. We are accepting 100% fault for this based on the Insurance Bureau settlement agreement.
( {8 C: N: U; a- y, U- {/ B; p$ S2 A' z' U
3 V% }8 g5 x' B
, {! }* ^* t- y* p( o, e |
|
楼主: prouddolphin
狗仔卡
发表于 2014-2-23 22:39
显身卡
发表于 2014-2-24 09:57
