Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Washington Auto Accident Valuation Dispute Overview
If you have ever been in an accident and had the insurance company low ball you, you know that this is a tough part of the law if you don't know how to effective argue these items.
In accidents that include personal injury claims,
as well as auto claims, the two issues will typically involve two different
negotiation processes. Here is an overview of what you need to know with the
automobile valuation should you happen to disagree with the insurance company
valuation.
How is the value of the car determined/disputed?
Governing Law: WAC 284-30-391
Unless insurance company and insured can agree on
value, an insurer must settle the insured’s total loss claim by using one of
following three methods:
1) Offering replacement with an available and comparable care in the insured’s area
1) Offering replacement with an available and comparable care in the insured’s area
Replacement vehicle must be a (1) comparable
vehicle, (2) available for inspection within a reasonable distance from where
the totaled vehicle is normally parked.
2) Cash Settlement Based on “Actual Value” of Comparable Cars in the insured’s area
The insurer must determine the “actual value” of a comparable vehicle, minus the deductible. The insurer must determine the actual cash value is by using one of the following methods:
2) Cash Settlement Based on “Actual Value” of Comparable Cars in the insured’s area
The insurer must determine the “actual value” of a comparable vehicle, minus the deductible. The insurer must determine the actual cash value is by using one of the following methods:
a. The actual cash value of a
comparable vehicle in area where loss vehicle is normally garaged.
b. Using two or more licensed dealer quotations of a comparable vehicle by dealers located within 150 miles of area where loss vehicle normally garaged
c. The actual cash value of two or more comparable vehicles advertised for sale within 150 miles of area where loss vehicle is normally garaged.
d. A computerized source that must meet the criteria within WAC 284-30-391(2)(iv)
e. If no methods in a-d provide an actual cash value, search area may be expanded in 25 mile increment, not to exceed 150 miles without permission of the claimant
f. If the insurance policy has an appraisal provision, either party may invoke it to determine actual cash value
b. Using two or more licensed dealer quotations of a comparable vehicle by dealers located within 150 miles of area where loss vehicle normally garaged
c. The actual cash value of two or more comparable vehicles advertised for sale within 150 miles of area where loss vehicle is normally garaged.
d. A computerized source that must meet the criteria within WAC 284-30-391(2)(iv)
e. If no methods in a-d provide an actual cash value, search area may be expanded in 25 mile increment, not to exceed 150 miles without permission of the claimant
f. If the insurance policy has an appraisal provision, either party may invoke it to determine actual cash value
The insurer must add to the
actual cash value any applicable taxes, license fees and other fees that
would have been incurred by the insured if he had purchased the loss. (WAC
284-30-391). After the actual cash value, sales tax and applicable
pro-rated taxes and fees are added together, the insurance company deducts
the salvage value from the total amount.
Tip from the Office of the Insurance
Commissioner: To
find out if the amount the insurer offers you is a reasonable estimate of the
retail market value, ask the insurer for a “total
loss valuation report.” This report shows the comparable auto data the
insurer used to calculate your vehicle’s value. Insurers aren’t required to
provide it without being asked, so be sure you request a copy.
For more information on Seattle Auto Accident Help, consider contacting a Seattle Auto Accident Attorney.
Our Firm:
520 Kirkland Way, Ste 103
Kirkland, WA 98033
T: (425) 889-9300
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Seattle Bike Accident Overview
Seattle Bicycle Accidents: No
Presumptive Liability for Drivers
Bicyclists Hit by a Motor Vehicle have the Initial Burden of
Proving Liability
In personal injury cases, such as when a driver of a motor vehicle
is injured by another driver, the plaintiff normally has the initial burden of
proving that: (1) the defendant was negligent; (2) the plaintiff was injured;
and (3) that negligence of the defendant was a proximate cause of injury to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove these facts by a ‘preponderance of the
evidence,’ which equates to a more-likely-than-not standard.
The law provides certain exceptions to this initial burden,
however, such as when a following vehicle collides with the vehicle in front of
it, in which case negligence on the part of the following driver will be
presumed. Interestingly, the law provides no exception for this burden of proof
in the case of collisions between bicyclists and motor vehicles. Subject to
only narrow exceptions, bicyclists who are hit by a motor vehicle still have to
meet this initial burden of proving liability on the part of the motor vehicle
driver.
Washington statute provides the default rule that bicyclists are
subject to the same laws as motor vehicles, explaining that:
Every person riding
a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be
subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle… except as
to special regulations of this chapter… and except as those provisions of this
chapter which by their nature can have no application.
RCW
46.61.755. One notable case-law exception to this general rule is that a
bicyclist in a crosswalk is not subject to general traffic rules and is
entitled instead to the protections of a pedestrian.[1]
Should the Law Create a
Presumption of Liability for Drivers?
While
the plaintiff’s initial burden of proof is likely appropriate in the context of
a collision between two motor vehicle drivers, some commentars argue that this burden is inappropriate for
collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles. The Washington Bike Law organization,
for example, argues that, by presuming liability of motor vehicle drivers who
collide with cyclists, the law would:
· (a) take
into consideration the power imbalance between motor vehicles and bicycles;
· (b) increase
bicycle ridership; and
· (c) account
for the fact that many bicyclists suffer memory loss because of head injuries
and have difficulty meeting their burden of proof.[2]
Lobbyists are pursuing efforts to sponsor legislation that creates presumptive
liability for motor vehicle drivers who collide with bicyclists or pedestrians.
Presumptive
liability for motor vehicle drivers is not a concept unique to the United
States. On the contrary, several European countries have adopted legal systems
where motor vehicle drivers are presumed liable in collisions with pedestrians
or bicyclists, including the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and
France.
Opponents
of imposing presumptive liability on drivers argue that our legal system is
based upon the presumption of innocence, and that presumptive liability
violates this basic principle. Furthermore, opponents highlight the fact that
Personal Injury Protection (PIP) is fairly common in Washington, and provides
no-fault injury coverage for medical treatment, thereby avoiding injustice
while the injured bicyclist or pedestrian argues his/her case.
Conclusion: Be Aware of
Your Rights and Responsibilities
This
concept of presumptive liability will likely be debated in the future, as urban
cities shift towards alternative modes of transportation to adjust for growing
populations and limited space. With no change to the law apparent in the near
future, however, it is important the bicyclists involved in a collision with a
motor vehicle understand that they have the same general rights and
responsibilities as motor vehicle drivers. This means that an injured bicyclist,
much like an injured motor vehicle driver, will have the initial burden of
proving liability.
The
same common recommendations for injured motor vehicle drivers therefore apply
to injured bicyclists:
e 1) exchange
information with the other party;
· 2) talk
to witnesses and get their contact information;
· 3) take
pictures if possible;
· 4) keep
track of any medical treatments received after the collision.
If you are injured in a Bike Accident, consider contacting a Seattle Bike Attorney.
Our Firm
520 Kirkland Way, Ste 103
Kirkland, WA 98033
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)