What You Should Know If Your Car Has Been in a Rear-End Collision

If you have just been rear-ended by another vehicle, you may be under the assumption that getting covered by the other party's insurance will be a breeze. Ask anybody and they'll say "If you get hit from behind, you're not at fault and the person who hit you is responsible." What they are saying is that the insurance of the person who hit you is responsible. While this is true in most cases, there are situations in which this does not apply. Here's how I know...

Several days ago I was hit from behind by another driver. There was sizable damage to my car, and I have injuries as well. Like everyone, I thought "no problem - his insurance will take care of everything."

As it turns out, this assumption is wrong and following is how my situation actually played out.

A vehicle hit my car from behind while I was at a full stop at a traffic light. The driver was a male in his mid-twenties. After being hit, both the police and ambulance were called. After the EMTs checked me out, I was able to speak to the police. One of the police officers told me that the car the other driver hit me with belonged to his mother and was insured by her as well (by Progressive Insurance). In hearing that, it didn't sound like a problem as far as the insurance was concerned - I figured that the mother's insurance would cover my damages. Here comes the twist...

The person who hit me had a driver's license that was under suspension. His mother has claimed that he didn't live at her home (although he told the police that he did live with her). She then claimed that her son had come to her house while she was at work, took her spare set of keys, went to her place of employment and took her car from there - without her permission. She said she only found out that her car was missing and involved in an accident when he son text-messaged her telling her so.

While this may seem inconsequential, it opens up a huge can of worms with the insurance agencies. According to Progressive Insurance, the insurance carrier of the mother (the person who owned the vehicle), they would need to determine whether or not the car was stolen by the son. In order to do this, they need to determine where the son actually lives (he has since given another address as his place of residence) and whether his knowledge of the location of the spare set of keys came from his mother or father telling him where they were - or whether he happened to search them out on his own.

If the determination comes back that he was given permission, either directly through verbal communications, or indirectly by being told of the availability of the spare keys, then the mother's insurance will cover my damages.

However, if it is determined that he stole her vehicle, then her insurance is not responsible to pay any damages.

So, basically, there is a 50-50 chance of the cost of damages to my vehicle being paid to me by the mother's insurance company.

My insurance company strongly encouraged me to wait out the process that the other driver's insurance company would have to go through to determine whether or not they would cover damage to my vehicle. Basically this incident was turning into a situation that required a full-fledged investigation. Time was going by and I was without a car and there was no end in sight as to when the determination would be made.

Eventually, I decided to let my insurance company handle the claim as that way I was ensured that my damages would be covered and all I would have to pay out would be my deductible.

Fortunately I have top-notch insurance, however I find it frustrating that I did nothing wrong and am very likely to have to cover my losses on my own.

Here's hoping that you never find yourself in a situation like this.

~Note (added 1/20/2010):
I have since found out new information.
1) The driver was going from place to place with his infant son in tow. From what I've been told it was quite some distance from his home to his mother's in an area that has busy streets and little to no sidewalks. It was also some distance to the nearest train station which he accessed to get to the mother's place of employment. Progressive Insurance chose to determine that this had no relevance to the situation.

2) The driver has a record with the police that is longer than you can believe, involving underage drinking, drugs, driving without a license, driving without insurance, assault, trespassing, and more. Public records can't be hidden yet Progressive Insurance chose to determine that this had no relevance as well.

3) According to laws in this area, the driver will only be charged for causing an accident, not theft of a vehicle because the owner knew him, even if she didn't give him permission.

So what this boils down to is that my insurance is covering damage to my vehicle and what is amounting to a good pile of medical bills. That's the sort-of good news. The bad news is that I'm expecting to get a sizable bump in my next insurance renewal, all because some mother let her kid with priors take her car, lied about it, and then covered his butt to get herself off the hook while somebody else suffers. What a proud Momma this woman must be.

Oh - and in case I haven't mentioned it ENOUGH, Progressive Insurance is the driver's mother's insurance who refused to cover my losses.