BigBadInsuranceMan

You're funny I hate to disappoint, but it is so unlikely that I'll get to let you know how it works out. Sadly, it probably won't be resolved for years. Yes... years. 2 to 5 years is "typical". And it likely won't be my file any more when it does eventually get resolved, as I hope to be promoted to higher risk files by the time this one nears its conclusion (unless I get caught for having random Internet folk run my cases for me).

Cheers

I was wrong... I came back All is forgiven. I do want to point out that the only thing I actually asked for was if there was something unusually cramped about this particular vehicle - 2006 Ford Fusion. I wasn't soliciting opinions on anything else, so it isn't really fair to suggest I'm "speculating on the internet whether in a particular situation there may/should/could have been [etc etc]". I was ONLY looking for a tidbit to see if I should just be accepting her claim as-is. Had you said, "oh yeah, its a big problem. Everyone complains about this [whatever] jutting down" or whatever, then I may have figured, "ok, there is something different". I got the answer I was looking for - that it is more or less normal - and that doesn't resolve the situation at all, it just shows me that there's no reason to order engineering reports as required by the situation. Like most things... my job (just like yours, I'm sure) isn't as a simple as a 2 minute conversation with your buddy or the first-thought-to-your-mind opinions might suggest. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a question is just a question But I like posting on forums and feeding curious minds, so... Your assumptions that "she can't be at fault" isn't necessarily correct. I mean, it is correct in this case, but it isn't universal. Yes, a rear-ending is TYPICALLY the rear vehicle's fault, but there are a number of exceptions. The obvious one is someone backing into someone else. Also, if it can be established that a party effectively removed the other party's stopping distance (ie. "cut off" then slammed on the brakes for whatever reason), then the person in front would be at fault (difficult to prove - GET YOUR DASH CAMS FOLKS). Then there's deliberately causing an accident, which always trumps normal "who's at fault" rules. Again, difficult to prove, but a couple weeks ago we had a guy that had multiple rear-ending claims, all with the defendant stating he did it on purpose. On one of them, we had a credible 3rd party witness that stuck around, so we got that guy! Another assumption you made ("BBE must then be the adjuster for the company representing the at fault driver") is also not quite as simple as you think. Different jurisdictions have different systems. Ours is fairly unique. As odd as it may sound, I represent both... sort of. But "represent" isn't quite the right word - we reserve that for the lawyers who legally represent their clients. I'm more-or-less a neutral party investigating what happened and assigning dollar figures to it. Then the lawyers spend all day telling me I'm wrong

Ah ha! But I am, in fact, an insurance adjuster. I suppose I could prove it, but I see no need (plus if I did that, who knows... I might end up fired). Frankly, I'm not sure where the doubts are coming from lol. We do have resources, but I'm not in the habit of wasting their time needlessly. This was the easiest way to find out if there was something unusual about this car. Far easier than finding one. Now that I have that preliminary info, we can decide if it is worth arguing. For answering your questions though:. she was the driver who was rear ended. Whether or not it matters depends on jurisdiction and the type of claim. Here, for example, she is entitled to treatment expenses whether or not she's at fault... but not if the injury wasn't caused by the accident, as I suspect. Your skepticism is unfounded, but it probably means you'd make good adjusters! Ps. I never asked for your opinions. I was seeking factual-by-balance-of-probability information about the car. You guys were the ones that went off on matters of fault, etc. Which is fine, you're curious. Anyway, I have what I asked for. I doubt I'll be back (being called a liar out of the blue does tend to turn off people) but thanks for the answer.

OK, maybe not so drastic as the title suggests I am an insurance adjuster investigating an injury claim. To some of you, I'm the evil bad guy trying to deny a claim. But really, I'm just doing a job and trying to protect everyone's rates from inflated/exaggerated/false claims. In this particular case, there's a knee injury that I don't readily believe. The claimant had surgery on that knee previously but is stating that it was fine before the accident and that her knee was "driven into the dashboard", causing her current problems (her knee injury is well established - it is the cause that is in question). This is a moderate rear-ending (enough force to cause significant damage, but not so much that any airbags deployed), and she states she was properly belted in her seat. She's claiming that the particular design of the car was such that her knee made contact. So that's why I'm here. Is there something "particular" about the design of a 2006 Ford Fusion that would make someone's right knee more likely to be "driven into the dashboard" while properly seated and belted? This woman is 5'4". It is very unusual for an adjuster to go to an Internet forum for this sort of thing... but I thought I'd try a shot in the dark before we spend gobs of money on engineering reports. If this car is known for having an unusually tight/low dash then I might be inclined to just accept that portion of her claim. If it is more-or-less "normal", then I'll put the money out to do an engineering analysis. I appreciate it any responses!