Liberty Mutual Insurance rear ended me RIPOFF! Phoenix Arizona

Liberty Mutual Insurance Fraud-Breached Contract

Liberty Mutual Insurance delayed, deceived, lied, and denied payment for my UIM policy.  I am permantently disabled from being hit and then defended the women litigating aggressively against me when I was hurt at my worst.  I paid them to protect me, instead they intentionally caused tremendous harm by outright lying in court.  The Georgia Courts are completely corrupt, paid for by Liberty Mutual's lobbyist campaign contributions that appoint "trial judge's" that ONLY rule in their favor.  I fought, appealled, alone, all while in tremendous pain.  A Class action lawsuit needs to be filed to end their outrageous injustice, let us fight the corruption together!

Liberty Mutual Insurance is the Worst, lets file a class action lawsuit,

treasurethemoments2@gmail.com

As a former insurance adjuster I can tell you that you do have recourse but it might take a minute. You can go through your own insurance company, pay your deductible then have them subrogate the claim. This means your insurance company will file a claim on your behalf with the subrogation department used by your state. Each insurance company will send in their documentation as to why they should win the case. The documentation is reviewed by a panel who will come to a decision on your case. This process takes several months but I believe, in your case, you could very well win. If you do win your deductible will be refunded back to you. (If you have already cashed the payment and repaired your vehicle then you will not be able to take this course of action)

You could also file a complaint with the insurance commissioners office for your state. Give the details of your case to the commissioners office who will inturn contact the insurance company and ask them why they could even possibly think you are at fault for any of this. The decision could very well be reversed. If your insurance commissioner is an elected official as opposed to an appointed one then they are more receptive. Since it was the public who hired them they are more apt to listen. There are those insurance companies out there whose mission is to pay as little as possible if anything. The employees are reprimanded and sometimes fired for paying too much on claims.

As a rebuttal to their ludicrous agrument you can tell the insurance company that if you were to stop, that any vehicle behind you would have struck you in the rear. Then you would definitely be at fault. You are not responsible for this accident because you were obeying the laws of the road. If that was the case then all cars should stop at red and green lights. What a nice traffic mess that would make.

Well, being first a subscriber to this forum and second a recent victim of the careless act of a Liberty Mutual insured, I can sympathize with others that have had property damages incurred due to Liberty Mutual's "Golden Cash Cow", which is better explained in the terminology "Comparative Negligence".

Now grant you, comparative negeligence has it rightful place in the scope of property damage claims, but from wht I see, it would appear that a pattern can very easily be mad out, one that clearly indicates that Liberty Mutual uses this method in order to deny and defraud the general public.

Something you might find interesting, while Liberty Mutual maintains a website, LibertyMutual.com, I'd be willing to bet that you could not guess who alos owns the sucks counterpart.

Liberty Mutual Group does! as well as a number of other mixes of derogatory dot.coms.

Smart...Maybe??? Driven by reason or definitve fact....I'd bet good money on it!

Well as a programmer and web designer, I have been doing my homework, but after I was hit by a Liberty Mutual Insured in Jnauary 2006 in which I experienced over $10K in property damage alone, the guy that hit me was ticketed and now has been found guilty of Careless driving for driving up the center turn lane for almost 200 feet before he hit the side of my truck at about forty miles per hour, I am about to take this company to task, and mind you I have done something similar with a company in a totally unrelated field in which the outcome was definitively positive, http://www.wellreflies.com, well all I can say is I want to hear from other whom have found themselves in similar situation as demonstrated here and as I am presently a victim of, as Liberty Mutual look out, here I come and let us let the dice roll and see who comes out on top.

Florida incidents especially is what I am interested in, but other states will onsly serve to assist me in proving without doubt that Liberty Mutual abuses the relative term "Comparitive Negligence" as a means to delay, deny and defraud the general public, and I will be demonstrating how this is not only a violation of many state statutes but also federal guidelines as well.

If it goes like I beleive it will, once I along with others have laid the ground work, I feel that finding a attorney(s) to pick up the causes now in limbo will become much easier.

Sincerely,
usthemandyall

If the other driver did not appear in court to contest the charge, she will automatically be convicted based on the police report. After that happens, then everyone must consider it fact that she ran the red light. Check her driving record and see if the conviction is there.

Actually Liberty Mutual has always considered it a fact that their cellphone princess didn't stop for the red. But then they used the doctrine of comparative negligence, strictly an insurance company scheme, to rip off the innocent victim.

If the other driver did not appear in court to contest the charge, she will automatically be convicted based on the police report. After that happens, then everyone must consider it fact that she ran the red light. Check her driving record and see if the conviction is there.

Actually Liberty Mutual has always considered it a fact that their cellphone princess didn't stop for the red. But then they used the doctrine of comparative negligence, strictly an insurance company scheme, to rip off the innocent victim.

If the other driver did not appear in court to contest the charge, she will automatically be convicted based on the police report. After that happens, then everyone must consider it fact that she ran the red light. Check her driving record and see if the conviction is there.

Actually Liberty Mutual has always considered it a fact that their cellphone princess didn't stop for the red. But then they used the doctrine of comparative negligence, strictly an insurance company scheme, to rip off the innocent victim.

If the other driver did not appear in court to contest the charge, she will automatically be convicted based on the police report. After that happens, then everyone must consider it fact that she ran the red light. Check her driving record and see if the conviction is there.

Actually Liberty Mutual has always considered it a fact that their cellphone princess didn't stop for the red. But then they used the doctrine of comparative negligence, strictly an insurance company scheme, to rip off the innocent victim.

Any police report is hearsay unless the police officer making the report actually witnessed the accident. The report is made up of statements from other people -- when you report what someone else said, it's hearsay! It doesn't matter what someone says -- admits the accident is her fault -- if she reports it to the officer, and the officer includes it on the report -- unless the other driver actually signs a statement under the penalty of perjury and attaches it to the police report, it's hearsay.

I am an ex-insurance agent and hope this advice will help you. If you were being reasonable and prudent in your driving, the other driver is 100% at fault. No logical person would believe it is reasonable and prudent to stop at a green light to see if anyone is running it. You may have had some options if you didn't sign off on their agreement. You could sue the other driver for $500. Her insurance company, which happens to be the same as yours is only liable up to their limits of coverage. This does not mean the other driver is off the hook. Look at this way. A father is killed in an auto accident, and the other driver is only insured to $15000. The father makes $50K a year. There are numerous expenses. The other driver simply does not get off because their insurance would only cover $15K.

I would sue the other driver in small claims for the $500 and rental car. You may want to consult an attorney, however they can't represent you in court. I would immediately change insurance carriers. I would file a complaint with the Arizona Attorney General and Insurance Commissioner. While, they may do nothing this would be a thorn in the side of your carrier.

Your accident damage does not sound like it might be bad enough to hire an attorney and sue Liberty Mutual. You may want to file suit against them in small claims too, or name them part of the suit against the other driver. They probably won't show, which means you are more likely to get a judgement against them.

Best of luck...

a green light means go through the intersection without looking. You still have the obligation to check for other drivers coming the other direction.

Try this one out - you are following a person, and he/she stops at a green light and you end up rear ending them. Guess what - YOU are responsible. You are supposed to have full control of your vehicle at all times. If you rear ended someone, YOU were following the other dirver too closely, and did not have total control off your vehicle.

The police reports in this case are not heresay, the girl admitted to me, police and the insurance company that she was NOT looking, that she was dialing her cell phone.

Liberty Mutual relied on that I could see the car, so therefore it was my fault. They said becasue I chose to drive that day it was my fault.

I spoke with 3 adjusters and 2 supervisors and they said I was lucky they made it 15% and 25%.

The only recourse in AZ that I had was to go to court. After talking with 2 lawyers, they both said it wasn't enough money to go to court on. I should basically take what they were giving me.

I understand about comparative negligence, having been a paralegal for 25 years, and I also understand that police reports are for the most part hearsay. But, just what did Liberty Mutual rely on when they determined you were 15% at fault? Is this some kind of standard formula they use? Did they consult an independent accident reconstructionist? Does Arizona have a mediation process for insurers and insureds? This sounds completely arbitrary to me.

Comparative Negligence is a total crock. It's only purpose is to give the insurance companies a way to collect both deductibles and increase both policyholders' rates. So far it seems to only occur when both drivers have the same insurance company, but there's nothing to prevent companies from colluding with each other and applying it to every multi-vehicle crash. It should be illegal in every state. Assign the blame to one driver or the other. I realize in a very few cases this won't be fair either, but overall it will average out and bad drivers will be blamed for more crashes than good ones.

I'm going to start stopping at every green arrow until I see the oncoming cars have fully stopped for the red. I'll probably end up getting rear-ended (or even shot) for that, which Liberty Mutual will say was my fault. They will also say it wouldn't have happened if I'd stayed home instead. Well the reason to buy car insurance is so you can take your car out of the driveway once in a while.

The bottom line is that insurance companies always try to pay slightly less than they know they'd lose in court. Then they hope the policyholder won't think the little bit more is worth the bother of hauling them in front of a judge.

Comparative Negligence is a total crock. It's only purpose is to give the insurance companies a way to collect both deductibles and increase both policyholders' rates. So far it seems to only occur when both drivers have the same insurance company, but there's nothing to prevent companies from colluding with each other and applying it to every multi-vehicle crash. It should be illegal in every state. Assign the blame to one driver or the other. I realize in a very few cases this won't be fair either, but overall it will average out and bad drivers will be blamed for more crashes than good ones.

I'm going to start stopping at every green arrow until I see the oncoming cars have fully stopped for the red. I'll probably end up getting rear-ended (or even shot) for that, which Liberty Mutual will say was my fault. They will also say it wouldn't have happened if I'd stayed home instead. Well the reason to buy car insurance is so you can take your car out of the driveway once in a while.

The bottom line is that insurance companies always try to pay slightly less than they know they'd lose in court. Then they hope the policyholder won't think the little bit more is worth the bother of hauling them in front of a judge.

Comparative Negligence is a total crock. It's only purpose is to give the insurance companies a way to collect both deductibles and increase both policyholders' rates. So far it seems to only occur when both drivers have the same insurance company, but there's nothing to prevent companies from colluding with each other and applying it to every multi-vehicle crash. It should be illegal in every state. Assign the blame to one driver or the other. I realize in a very few cases this won't be fair either, but overall it will average out and bad drivers will be blamed for more crashes than good ones.

I'm going to start stopping at every green arrow until I see the oncoming cars have fully stopped for the red. I'll probably end up getting rear-ended (or even shot) for that, which Liberty Mutual will say was my fault. They will also say it wouldn't have happened if I'd stayed home instead. Well the reason to buy car insurance is so you can take your car out of the driveway once in a while.

The bottom line is that insurance companies always try to pay slightly less than they know they'd lose in court. Then they hope the policyholder won't think the little bit more is worth the bother of hauling them in front of a judge.

Laurie,

Insurance companies have no obligation to use the conclusions of police officers who investigate accidents or to rely on the judgments of traffic courts. Even if you were cited and beat the rap, the insurance company could still decide that you were at fault. Short of suing in civil court, you do not have much recourse against an arbitrary settlement offered by by a five-dollar-an-hour insurance adjuster.

Consider yourself lucky that you were not cited. Arizona's left-turn law makes the person crossing the center line liable for everything. Even if you made a left turn on a green arrow with explicit direction from a police officer and collided with a speeding stolen car driven by a drunk who ran a red light, you could still be cited.

Many years ago a friend of mine had a similar situation. He was in a minor accident where both drivers were insured by the same carrier. The insurer refused to pay for damages to my friend's car because he had only liability coverage; they paid for the other driver's damages because he had collision coverage. The insurance company did not care who was at fault. They just wanted to limit their loss.

Let see here, the other driver admits fault and the police see no wrongdoing by the author. Who is the only one that can find a shred of fault for the author, oh that would be the insurance company that has to pay the claim. Utter BS, in fact my parents were in a similar accident a few years ago (they had green left turn arrow, driver ran red and hit them) and had their claim paid with no problem, and without the "comparative negligence" garbage.

My advice to you when you are all done with this is to find a better insurer. The employee who responded sounds indicative of the whole company with his "you should be happy you're paying anything at all" attitude.

Comparative Negligence is a valid argument for Liberty Mutual to use against you. Picture yourself in the company's shoes; Would you give payouts to every Sam, d**k, and Harry that showed you their palm? No. The rules and exclusions are there for a reason. 85% is better than 0%.