Do You Trust Flo? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

HuskyMan · #31 03-16-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

I agree, but that is why there is a documented claim process and the U.S. court system. You have failed to answer my consistent question - how is any of described situation the insurance company's fault?

BTW, been there and done that. Police use discretion if any parties are injured.

The insurance company relies on the police report. If the police report is flawed, then so is the insurance companies conclusions. And, let's not forget that the police usually come the scene of an accident AFTER it happens. They are normally not first hand witnesses to any of it, which means they have to rely on the testimony of the people involved as well as any other drivers or pedestrians. And in granny's case, the pedestrians lied in exchange for $20 which tilted the cards in the favor of the perp. Now, the perp has a clean driving record as well as a clean insurance claims record.

Lucky him.

tbomachines · #32 03-16-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

The insurance company relies on the police report. If the police report is flawed, then so is the insurance companies conclusions. And, let's not forget that the police usually come the scene of an accident AFTER it happens. They are normally not first hand witnesses to any of it, which means they have to rely on the testimony of the people involved as well as any other drivers or pedestrians. And in granny's case, the pedestrians lied in exchange for $20 which tilted the cards in the favor of the perp. Now, the perp has a clean driving record as well as a clean insurance claims record.

Lucky him.

So it is the police's fault for not correctly assessing the information at the scene and acting too quickly. The police are expected to do their job properly. Unless there is probable cause, they should not be issuing any tickets, just doing a police report which the insurers will take into consideration. Again, how is it the insurance company's fault?

Also I have a hard time believing witnesses would have lied to police for a complete stranger just for $20, especially against an elderly woman being involved in an accident... but thats just me. Much more to the story than meets the eye.

HuskyMan · #33 03-16-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbomachines

So it is the police's fault for not correctly assessing the information at the scene and acting too quickly. The police are expected to do their job properly. Unless there is probable cause, they should not be issuing any tickets, just doing a police report which the insurers will take into consideration. Again, how is it the insurance company's fault?

Also I have a hard time believing witnesses would have lied to police for a complete stranger just for $20, especially against an elderly woman being involved in an accident... but thats just me. Much more to the story than meets the eye.

You obviously haven't spent much time on the other side of the railroad tracks. In those parts, $20 is like $20,000 to the rest of us. Drop $20 and they will say anything.

This has been going on for a long time though. In ancient Greece there were people called 'straw shoes'. 'straw shoes' was a guy who hung around outside the court house. The lawyers knew him because he had straw sticking out of his shoes. At court recess, the lawyer would come outside on his break.

The lawyer would walk up to straw shoes and ask, "Did you see so and so do such and such last Thursday night?" To which straw shoes replied: "To be sure I did". "Then come to court and swear to it" as the lawyer led ole straw shoes into the court house slipping fifty bucks into straw shoes' pocket........

Perjured testimony is for sale to the highest bidder, always has been and always will be.

Liars for hire.

tbomachines · #34 03-16-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

You obviously haven't spent much time on the other side of the railroad tracks.

Looks like you haven't actually answered my question, not to mention your story made no say of the area it was in. Plus, that's quite an assumption you've made over the internet without even knowing me in real life--but I'll leave it at that. Just because people are poor doesn't mean they have no moral compass and are susceptible to go askew at the slightest hint of money. I am truly sorry you have such a negative outlook on insurers and the general public, they're not all bad.

Now is the time for me to leave the thread since it has obviously gone off topic and I do not want an infraction. If you wish to answer my question I will be happy to resume discourse.

HuskyMan · #35 03-16-2011, 11:32 PM

My point is the insurance company receives it's data from a variety of sources; the police report, ambulance report, doctors notes, etc etc. The first report in the hopper is the police report. And, in most instances the police are on the scene AFTER the accident. Which means they must rely on witness testimony, position of the cars, etc etc. In other words, the police are getting their facts SECOND HAND. And that, dear friends, opens the door to testimony which may be skewed to favor only one of the parties to the accident.

Which means that if the insurance company accepts the police report like it is the gospel truth, then the insurance company may become a party to a corrupted view of the accident. The insurance company is not a first hand witness to the accident and neither are the police (in most instances). Only the people involved; the drivers and pedestrians who are the actual first hand witnesses to the accident. And, each and every one of them will have a slightly different version of the facts. See how this gets complicated?

There is no universally accepted set of facts or truth regarding any event. Only opinions.