Insurance Surcharge Hearing- What to know

I have to attend an insurance surcharge hearing on May 2. This is in regards to an accident that occurred back on the Snowpocalypse of 12/26/2010. Never been to one of these before. How should I prepare?

I never even heard of one of these....

X2

I appealed my surcharge after I got the damage estimate and now I have to go to a hearing for it. From what I know, I have to go to court and plead my case that the surcharge should not be applied because of the weather conditions.

Back on the Snowpocalypse of 12/26/2010, I was turning around in a parking lot after being told I didn't have to come into work when a plow truck came head-on towards me. I put the Mazdaspeed3 into reverse to avoid a collision but I sideswiped a rock I couldn't see because of the white-out conditions and it was buried in snow. Driver's side front door, front fender, side skirt, winter tire, and steelie were dented. Car went into the bodyshop yesterday (Monday) and won't be back for at least 7 business days. It would have cost me over $1400 to have the repairs done out-of-pocket.

I'm going to ask my insurance agent what to expect tomorrow. He says that most likely the surcharge will be waved due to the weather conditions but I want every advantage I can get to make sure that is the case. Would a suit be appropriate attire?

RexSeven wrote: Would a suit be appropriate attire?

In court, yes.

I looked it up, it deals with at-fault level and basically says you get a surcharge if you're believed to be over 50% at fault. My question is, who decides, the insurance company? Then you have to fight them over your insurance? WTF? Am I not understanding something?

I work in the auto insurance industry. I'm on the claims side of the house, not the underwriting (premium) side, so I'm not an authority on surcharges.

Where is this hearing? Is it in a court, with a judge presiding over it? Or is it in front of an arbitrator?

If you had a "collision" loss, the insurance company has to make a liability determination. So if you hit a rock, you are going to be found liable. That decision is made by the adjuster who handled your claim. Underwriting takes that info from the claim department and will make a premium adjustment as they deem appropriate.

If you're trying to fight it, you'll want the most reasonable and logical argument you can present as to why you shouldn't be held liable. Perhaps getting actual weather data, etc...may help. If you have scene photos you think will help, bring them. Not to say that you won't win, because I don't know all the details, and it is a judgment call. However, if you struck a rock, it's probably going to be a tough argument to make.

Data - bring data. I did the arguing-over-the-value-of-the-totaled-car thing, and data was the only thing that will do it. News stories, pictures, interviews, that sort of thing.

Datsun1500 wrote: What data? Here is a photo of the rock I hit? This is going to be a tough one to win seeing as you are 100% at fault. The weather will make no difference, there are plenty of people that were out in that weather and did not hit a rock. Your best bet would be the "I have no previous claims, good customer for xx years, etc." if there are no other claims of course

The OP mentioned then waiving the surcharge based on the weather. The data would prove that the weather was bad, get it?

Should have let the plow hit you. Then his insurance would have had to pay.

<--- learned the lesson that avoiding accidents just makes it more of a PITA than hitting the bastard who is really at fault.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Should have let the plow hit you. Then his insurance would have had to pay. <--- learned the lesson that avoiding accidents just makes it more of a PITA than hitting the bastard who is really at fault.

If you've ever seen a 'real' snowplow you wouldn't let it hit you no matter what if you valued your life more than your car...

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to tuna55: As I said, bad weather does not get him out of it. Proving the weather was bad will not help. It will go like this: Op - the weather was bad Ins. So? You are at fault Op. Here is proof the weather was bad. Ins. We agree the weather was bad, you are still at fault.

The insurance guy said: He says that most likely the surcharge will be waved due to the weather conditions

So... bring extra proof of the bad weather conditions...

I've been thru this twice and won both times. If you are in a single car accident, you are automatically determined to be at fault. Simply tell them the roads were icy. You were driving in an appropriate controlled manner when the car hit a patch of ice. The car would not respond to any input of the wheel or brakes. You were along for the ride. My wife just went thru this on Cape Cod exiting the mall. It was snowing lightly. As she approached the lights, the car slid uncontrollably. When the cops arrived, they told her she was the fourth one that day at that intersection. While she was dealing with the cops, another car slid into a kid on a bike. He was hurt badly. Only then did the cops feel the need to inform DPW. I went to the police station the next day and asked for the reports on the accidents at the intersection that day( which they didn't want to give me) and then went to the DPW and asked for the official call log for the day. I mailed everything to the appeal board and never even had to deal with the hearing. I suggest you get the official accident reports for the day from the police in the town that the accident happened.

Weather actually usually isn't a sole consideration when determining liability. As Datsun as said, the weather itself isn't going to remove liability from you.

Even if you slide on an icy road, it does not mean you won't be found at fault. In fact, you likely will be.

The reason I suggested getting data about weather is to take a shot in the dark. In a situation like tr8todd described, the judge/arbitrator may have sympathy if you show it was a situation where everyone had trouble before the police could come to close the road. However, from the facts I hear here, that doesn't appear to be the case.

By the way...take the advice your insurance agent gives you with a grain of salt. They're agents. Their job is to sell insurance policies. The amount they know about claims varies greatly. I've heard some things out of the mouths of agents that made my jaw drop.

I was in an accident with my first RX-7 many years ago in a pretty bad snow storm that rolled in much earlier than everyone thought it would. I was 1 mile from home,and there was an accident that happened right in front of me,and then while I was trying to avoid the other crashed cars I slid in to the rear end of anotehr car that had better stopping ability,and all season tires.

I was surcharged,and also this happened in the same state as the OP,so I was able to appeal the surcharge. I went into this with no real ammunition aside from the fact that the weather was really bad(white-out conditions),and that there was another accident that lead to my accident. The insurance representative looked at her notes,and with the arbitrators nod just threw out my surcharge for the damage done to the other parties car. I didn't file a claim for the RX-7 damage as I didn't have collision coverage,and the damage was minimal anyway.

My guess is you won't have to fight too hard,but then again things may have changed since I had to do this,so go into it with some ammunition if you can. A newspaper article,or weather report from the net will help,but if they are locals they will remember the storm as I know I do.

Chris

No fault states kick ass.

John you can't imagine the nightmare that is Massachusetts Auto Insurance. There is such regulation it would make your head spin. It has been relaxed a bit over the years,but the requirements damn near drove every carrier out of the state for many years. Don't get me started on the state DMV (RMV actually,but only a local would know that) either. The rules,and requirements for this state is mind-boggling. Remind me again why I live here.

Oh crap!!! I just realized I have reached Dork status!!!! Sweet!!!

Chris

Datsun1500 wrote: Sliding on ice because it was icy is a lot different than backing into a rock you did not see. If he backed into another car would you say he is not responsible for damaging that car because of the weather?

I suppose it is a matter of did not or could not.

If a car was illegally parked and piled over with snow allowing someone to back over a portion of it and damage it - I would say no, they are not responsible. You could not possibly have known it was there and so avoided the damage. As compared to you did not know it was there but any reasonable person would have seen it or known it was there, then you would be at fault. It is a hard thing to judge sometimes.

And I don't really know anything so . . .

John Brown wrote: No fault states kick ass.

In some ways, but I can't help but feel ripped off since I haven't ever placed a claim on my insurance. (But have been hit a few times..)

My wife got rear ended in Michigan, which is a no-fault state. I ended up repairing the damage myself for minimal money, but was upset that they didn't cover it since it was clearly the other driver's fault.

John Brown wrote: No fault states kick ass.

That has to be sarcasm that just failed to trigger my detector. Particularly with Michigan's flavor of no fault.

Michigan is the only state that is a "no fault" state. Their laws are much different than the other states. Other states with "no fault" laws on the books really refer to mostly medical payments. Liability is still a factor.

Klayfish wrote: Michigan is the only state that is a "no fault" state. Their laws are much different than the other states. Other states with "no fault" laws on the books really refer to mostly medical payments. Liability is still a factor.

Yep. That's why I differentiated MI from everybody else using the term.

I am a claims adjuster but only work in it as a third party administrator (work for other insurance companies and self insured businesses). I only have practical experience in DC, MD, VA and FL and mostly with liability/third party claims.

I cannot understand how on a first party claim you could ask them to wavie this surcharge (or deductible?). If I understand this your deductible would be a set amount ($1000?) and they want you to pay an additional charge for being at fault($400)? To me that seems a bit odd. If I decided to practice my Ken Block skills in my wifes Forester and hit a rock I would be $500 out of pocket. Same as if I rear ended someone driving while checking out his latest video.

Thank you for all the replies. I spoke to the claims handler today and he said that someone from my insurance company will be there with me, and that the Mass. insurance magistrate tends to be lenient when it comes to bad weather. I understand that all signs point to me being at fault. However, I figure if I have the opportunity to get this surcharge waved, I might as well take it. The worst that will happen is my appeal fails and I'm out the surcharge anyways, plus an extra $50 for the appeal fee.

As for why I avoided the plow truck rather than take the hit- like Raze said, I was not about to risk my ass in a head-on collision with a wayward F-550-class dump truck/plow full of road salt. The Speed3 has good frontal crash-test ratings but that truck was moving a good 25mph and didn't brake, not even after he had passed me. I'd probably have survived but not without a trip to the hospital in a meat wagon.

I have two first hand experiences with these hearings in MA.

1) A friend was leaving work during a snowstorm. While driving down a hill the car in front of him slams on his brakes to let someone out of a side street - who knows why they thought this was a good idea. My buddy hits the brakes, but he knows it's a lost cause so he lets off the brakes and swerves off the road into a fire hydrant. Single car accident, not sure if he got a ticket or not for it. Anyways - he goes to the hearing and says that he had two options: rear end the guy in front of him and possibly cause injury, or drive off the road so he chose the latter. They let him go.

2) My dad hit a tire tread on the highway and destroyed his bumper. He ended up going to a surcharge hearing for that too. Told them that he had two choices: Hit the tire tread, or swerve out of the way and possibly take out one of the cars that was next to him on the highway. They let him go too.

If you tell them the truth about avoiding a head on collision with the plow I'm sure they'll let you off without the surcharge.