Nationwide Insurance the reason people get a personal injury attorney Houston Texas

Nationwide has decided to setle for 100% of my damages and costs associated with my small claims action. When you are right, you fight

Nationwide insures the other driver. The vehicle is registered to a business (corporation with a dba) and I have requested business info and registered agent from the secretary of state. My guess is that the owner of the small business is the driver's father.

If my car were worth more, I would have collision on it.

I do think it worth my time to file a small claims action directly against the company and see if that convinces them that the 40% they expect me to eat is much less than the time and $ they would expend in answering the complaint.

Nationwide insures the other driver. The vehicle is registered to a business (corporation with a dba) and I have requested business info and registered agent from the secretary of state. My guess is that the owner of the small business is the driver's father.

If my car were worth more, I would have collision on it.

I do think it worth my time to file a small claims action directly against the company and see if that convinces them that the 40% they expect me to eat is much less than the time and $ they would expend in answering the complaint.

Nationwide insures the other driver. The vehicle is registered to a business (corporation with a dba) and I have requested business info and registered agent from the secretary of state. My guess is that the owner of the small business is the driver's father.

If my car were worth more, I would have collision on it.

I do think it worth my time to file a small claims action directly against the company and see if that convinces them that the 40% they expect me to eat is much less than the time and $ they would expend in answering the complaint.

Nationwide insures the other driver. The vehicle is registered to a business (corporation with a dba) and I have requested business info and registered agent from the secretary of state. My guess is that the owner of the small business is the driver's father.

If my car were worth more, I would have collision on it.

I do think it worth my time to file a small claims action directly against the company and see if that convinces them that the 40% they expect me to eat is much less than the time and $ they would expend in answering the complaint.

The best way to prevent this is to keep Collision on your policy. If you're a safe driver it is not very expensive, though it still may not be worth it if your car is worth less than $2000 or so. It tends to stop this "comparative negligence" nonsense unless you have the misfortune to have the same insurance company as the other guy. Comparative negligence is a total crock that benefits only insurance companies and should be outlawed, but are consumers going to be able to out-lobby insurance companies?

Don't count on the other guy's insurance to protect you, that isn't it's purpose. It's to protect him. Greg is right that you can sue in court, though you may have given up that right if you accepted the 60% from Nationwide. Technically you sue the other driver, not an insurance company. By contract, his insurance company will assist with his defense and pay judgements if he loses.

Always call the police in case of a crash that isn't your fault, the paper trail will help your case.

The binding arbitration clause is used only for first party disputes (policyholder vs, their own insurance). The best example is when your vehicle is a total loss and the you as the policyholder disagrees with the insurance company offer.

In the situation described by the OP their dispute was against the other drivers insurance company. If the OP collects under their collision coverage their insurance company could file an inter-company arbitration against Nationwide.

Sit down and read your policy THOROUGHLY Chris.

I haven't been insured by Nationwide in the past, however, MOST auto insurance policies in the U.S. contain a "binding arbitration" clause.

By signing the policy agreement, if it contains this clause, you agree that any disputes with the insurer will be settled in binding arbitration rather than court.

Check it out before you spend money filing in small claims.

I understand comparative negligence, but to apportion this claim as 60/40 is absurd. 60/40 is the standard for when the insurance company wants to pay as litle as possible. I'll see how a small claims court sees it.

As a long time self employed claims adjuster who has handled TX claims let me tell you that Nationwide is right to apportion part of the liability to you as the striking vehicle.

In comparative negligence states both drivers can be held partially at-fault for an accident. You just don't want to be the one with the higher %. The Nationwide rep should have explained why you would have comparative negligence for this loss. Without knowing all the details I would guess "improper lookout" would be it. Even if you have the right-of-way you still have to be sure that the intersection is clear before entering it. You also should slow down a bit when entering an intersection to be prepared for some moron turning left in front of or running a red light. The Point of Impact that far back on the other vehicle indicates that you probably should have been able to see the other vehicle soon enough to avoid the loss.

I would suggest that you talk to a claims rep from your own insurance company and they can confirm what Nationwide is doing is allowable and correct. From the details you did include in your post I would think a liability split of 70/30 to 60/40 would be in the right ballpark. Sorry.