State Farm Insurance agent; Rene Burke Vestavia, Al.35243-2359 Insurance company did not believe my explanation of accident and that report contained a fabricated statement by reporting officer Vestavia Nationwide

 My statements in 'Further clarifications for Rene Burke...' is meant as a reply to your post, I somehow made a mistake in understanding the author by the way it appeared on page. To add to my statements on 'Further clarifi...', I want to explain that the erroneous fact reported by the deputy was the drawing that only depicted the lie told by Mr.Connell. It showed my vehicle entirely in the other lane which was enough to convince the ins. cos. My position is explained above and  I was not given equal credibility. Befor the settlement with Mr.Connell, I talked with Rene Burke and expressed my distraught at the report and even not to settle. She came back a day or so later and said she was going to settle with the other party, not having had sufficient time to make my case, I said she can do what she wants but I might be getting back to her, which I did. I also pointed the error describing damage to my vehicle as on bumper (while it was on fender), I am sure a judge will consider the sufficient reason to believe the deputies report contained a bias.

Finally, I do not intend to renew my ins. with this co., they are lucky to have a law that makes auto ins. mandatory in this state (and I should note, a state that does not favour gambling), and having my premium go up by about 25% for something I feel I am not guilty of is wrong.

 Saying I went wide to make a turn does not mean I left the lane, I plainly stated the width of the lane and inconsistencies in road markings  after I went there and measured it, and it was of sufficient size to allow both vehicles to fit on it.Vehicle contact occured after I had started making my turn,and the fact that damage to my vehicle was to the fender as opposed to the bumper means that my vehicle was in front of Mr.Connell's. In my opinion, mistaking a fender for a bumper is inexcusable.

  So, 'I thought there was only one lane ...' which is correct when there is no markings dividing it, which there wasn't, but looked otherwise when another vehicle was squeezing in the lane. So the officer's report was correct except if you take it the way you did. I did not disagree with the officer in this report.

   Tire markings..did you youself even investigate the scene, you are obviously incompetent because you sent my claim to another representative in your head office. Did you take a tape measure and measure the road? I know you sent someone to take pictures of my vehicle and you cannot distinguish a fender from a bumper.

   As for Mr. Connell's statement that I was in the left lane, is'nt there a possibility that he was lying? I even told you that one conversation I had with him where I was questioning the outcome he mentioned he might have lied, and soon after he blocked my number from his phone, if you are such an investigator yourself, I challenge you to find those records,

 As for your statement on prehistory, how sure are you that you are not the ignoramous who cannot comprehend an argument? And finally, I know that I am right and I will keep believing it.

There is basically once sentence in this entire "RipOff" that does you in....

 And the reason I went wide to make a turn befor accident occured was there was road markings that made it seem the curb stretched out and was too close to the building.

- You see YOU went "wide".  Once we filter that through the rest of the report it all becomes clear that the officer, and insurance company didn't mis-understand your side.  They realized your description of the accident showed you were at fault.

 I asked Leo Zaidan the driver of unit 1 what happened and he stated he thought there was only one lane on his side of the road and when he turned into the Wendy's parking lot a vehicle struck him in the front passenger bumper.

- Issue: You stated you "thought" there was only one lane.

I asked William Connell the driver of unit 2 what happened and he stated he was in the right lane and Mr. Zaidan was in the left lane. He said Mr Zaidan turned right from the left lane in front of him

- Issue: You admited you "went wide", it could easily be seen by the other driver that you were in the other lane.

An error I see right off in the report is the fact my vehicle has damage to passenger side fender right above tire, not on bumper.

- Issue: Bumpers are not just on the front, most will have some "wrap around", so even if this is a "technical" inconsistancy it is nothing earth shattering.

 Incidentally, when I investigated the scene, there was a long streak of fresh tire marking on the curb which I suspect came from other vehicle as the driver tried to squeeze past and I informed my agent but I am not sure if she checked on it.

- Issue: And exactly how many classes in Accident Investigations have you taken to be able to determine those tire marks were "fresh"?

 I don't think I should be penalized for this. I would not be pursuing this matter after 2 years if I didn't think I was right

- Issue: This is meaningless.  As I have no doubt you "think" you are right, but that doesn't make it so.  Remember people spent hundreds of years thinking the Earth was flat...didn't make them any more right now did it?

One final observation, in this entire report you seem to blame everyone else as being their fault.  The Officer wrote the report wrong, the insurance companies won't listen to  you, even the other party was smart enough to somehow avoid court, you had a previous accident, even the department of public works is at fault because they had markings that confused you.  Do you see a pattern here?

Now, I am sure you will still go on "thinking" you were right.  But perhaps some of this will sink in some day to make you look at it from a more independent view.  And NO, I am not an employee of any insurance company.