nevermind about facts and logic

I have learned a thing or two lately about driving and insurance companies. You, too, should learn this information and adjust your driving habits accordingly. Or just make sure you don't collide with a driver who shares your insurance company.

Among the things I have learned, as taught by State Farm:
1. Police officers do not interpret the law at the scene of a car accident. The officer was not there to witness the accident, so he is rendered incapable of interpreting the law.
2. The finding of innocence on the police report can be wholly ignored by the insurance company because, after all, the officer who wrote it up doesn't interpret the law.
3. State Farm, though also not present at the scene, does interpret the law.
4. Any time you are making a left turn, other drivers are relieved of their responsibility to follow the laws regarding right-of-way.

And now, the long version:
I was involved in a car accident a month ago. No injuries to either party, for which I am thankful. I was on a main road (two lanes each direction with a turning lane). I had stopped in the turning lane, with my blinker on, about to turn left into a parking lot. While I waited for the rush-hour volume of oncoming traffic to clear, I had plently of time to look around and I noticed another vehicle sitting in a parking lot to my left at the next driveway ahead of the one I was turning into. When my oncoming traffic cleared and I saw that the other driver did not pull out (even though the traffic cleared past her car before it cleared past mine), I made my left turn. Once my car was perpendicular across both lanes of the road, the other driver pulled out towards me. I saw her soon enough for me to come to a complete stop, but we still collided. So, her front driver's corner hit my front passenger's corner.

It just so happens that we were in front of the Honda dealership. So the guys ran out to make sure we are okay. We had to move our cars because mine was blocking both lanes of oncoming traffic during rush hour. One of the Honda employees, bless his soul, took this photo with his camera phone:

Once the police officers arrived, the other driver ranted and raved about how she had pulled completely into my oncoming lane and how I just tried to cut across in front of her to beat her. She neglected to mention to the officer that photos were taken. Up to that point, the officer was not believing me when I said that the other driver was still on the shoulder when she hit me and that she had never entered my lanes. I then insisted that he look at the photos. The officer saw the photos and said, "Ohhhh, hey, look at where the other driver's car is..." The other driver saw them and said, "Well yeah, I'm in the shoulder now because you hit me so hard you slammed me into the shoulder!" The officer scoffed at her theory and he wrote it up as "no contributing action" for me.

Initially, this was smooth sailing because the police report was in my favor. My initial claims rep and her initial claims rep agreed that it was completely her fault for not yielding when entering a main road from a parking lot. They called to inform me that her policy would pay for my damages and deductible. Then they called me right back to say that she was contesting the decision.

We are both State Farm customers and that was a problem. She had the right to contest it, which is fine. So it went to the supervisor level. I got a call from a supervisor who took a twenty minute recorded statement from me. Another supervisor took a statement from her. They conferred. Magically, in one day, the decision was changed to a 50-50 split of responsibility where we pay our own deductibles, our own polices cover our own damages, and both of our rates could go up. My own claims rep sold me out to the other side in a final decision without first telling me that she thought I was at fault.

SF kept urging me to go ahead and get it fixed through my own policy and "work out the details later." Which means, "once your car is fixed, we have no intentions of reversing that paperwork to reflect that you weren't at fault, so go ahead and get it over with so we can stick with this 50-50."

I told the supervisor I wanted to contest her decision. She told me they were consulting with State Farm's defense attorney in anticipation of this going to court. (I had not threatened court, mind you.) Her proper response would have been to let go of the case and send it to her manager, as is State Farm's policy. Instead, after I questioned her about prematurely escalating it to the court level, she said, "Well, I mean, I guess I could run it by my manager, but she would say the same thing."

I called Dad to fill him in, seeing as how I am still insured under our policy in Texas. Upon hearing that the supervisor wasn't following State Farm's own policies and that she was annoyed with me for contesting her decision, Dad went down to his local agent's office. Dad, who doesn't get upset, was upset. Together, they called the supervisor. She then claimed that she had just promised me that her manager would soon call me to follow up and move on with the case promptly. Hmm, not quite what she had told me. Do you have any idea how mad it made me that it took my Dad calling this woman to get it taken care of?

My argument goes like this: As stated in the State of Tennessee Driver's Manual, "when you are entering a main road from a parking lot, driveway, alley, or roadside, you must yield to all cars already on the main road." I was on the main road. She was entering the main road from a parking lot. She failed to yield to me. I came to a complete stop to avoid her and she still hit me. I am not responsible.

The other driver's first theory is that she was fully in my oncoming lane and I slammed her onto the shoulder. Too bad that is not physically possible, considering our point of impact and the final position of our cars. The back end of her car would have slid towards my car if I had hit her front end with enough force to move it completely out of a lane. Please.

And look at the spray of her headlight debris on the road. Every piece of it was projected in the direction her car was traveling and every piece went past my car in that direction. Had I slammed into her, at least some of that glass would have been projected in the direction that my car was moving.

The other driver's second theory is that it was legal for her to be on the shoulder because she can drive on the shoulder while merging into traffic. (Her choice of defense depends on the day, you see.) First, by admitting that she had pulled out onto the shoulder, she is admitting that she failed to yield to me as a car already on the main road. Second, it is not printed anywhere that it is legal to drive on the shoulder while merging onto a road from parking lot (AND you dont "merge" from a parking lot. You turn.) Third, "roadside" is a position from which she must yield to me anyway, according to the Driver's Manual.

My SF supervisor conceded to the other side that it is legal for her to merge from the shoulder. The other side could not show me where that is printed, but "it is just legal, okay?" On an interstate, sure, you can drive in the acceleration lane, but you still aren't supposed to drive on the shoulder.

SF said that the accident wouldn't have happened if I hadn't turned left. Well... yeah... and it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't turned right. It seemed that the fact that I was turning left allows the other driver to disregard the law. The Driver's Manual makes no distinction about the direction of travel of either car, only that the entering car must yield to ALL cars already on the main road.

SF also insisted that, because I saw the other driver's car prior to making my turn, I should have yielded to her and waited for her to pull out of the parking lot. Besides the fact that SF's position was contrary to the Driver's Manual, whether or not I saw her vehicle prior to my turning should have no impact on the interpretation of the right-of-way laws. Regardless of how aware or unaware a driver is, the right-of-way laws don't (shouldn't) change. The fact that I did see her car speaks to my awareness of my surroundings. SF acted like I saw her pulling out and decided to beat her. What I said in my recorded statement was that I saw her car stationary in the parking lot and still stationary after oncoming traffic cleared. I asked SF what is the appropriate length of time I am expected to wait to see if another driver chooses to break the law and enter the main roadway without yielding to me. They couldn't answer me, because HELLO, that is ridiculous.

A few days later, I did get the call from the manager on my side. She was professional, patient, kind, and logical. Which is way more than I had gotten from the supervisor on my side. She attempted to get the other side to give, but they wouldn't. She offered to let me speak directly to the supervisor on the other side. I did, and in our first conversation, he was calm. He even offered to review a particular point again and get back to me. Two hours later, he called back ALL RILED UP because he had spoken to his driver to let her know he was going to offer me 70-30 as an improvement over 50-50. The driver was not happy and the supervisor was tired of dealing with it, so he was mr. smarty pants with me and quite condescending. Gritting my teeth, I told him I would consider it.

And while I considered it, I called the TN Dept of Public Safety and asked to speak to someone who could provide further interpretation of a particular driving law - the one about my right of way. I was eventually routed to a State Trooper in the Safety Education Office who agreed to research it for me. He did quite a bit of research and called back to ask questions about why I needed it and what else he could do for me. He faxed me 5 laws that supported my case - 2 that said I was doing what I was supposed to be doing and 3 that said she wasn't doing what she was supposed to be doing. And he sent me the technical version, not the watered-down Driver's Manual version. I wrote up a two-page argument including those laws and the Trooper's name and phone number and sent it to my manager.

So, let's review. The other driver lied about her position on the road by saying she was completely in my oncoming lane. During her statements to the responding police officer, she chose to omit the fact that photographs were taken, knowing that the photographs would expose her lie. Upon seeing the photographs, she then changed her story to accuse me of slamming her vehicle into the shoulder. She continued to withhold the photograph information during her report to her local State Farm agent. She also lied to State Farm, giving the names of two witnesses who, by their own admission, did not witness the accident.

I went to the trouble to follow up with the man who took the photographs on scene, having him email the photographs to me so that I could send them on to State Farm (thanks to a Verizon guy for helping with the technology). I accessed an aerial view of the scene of the accident and sent it to State Farm for context (thanks to Brandon's brilliant suggestion). I did my own research with the Tennessee Driver’s Manual to determine which vehicle should yield right-of-way, consulted a State Trooper on the laws, consulted the Assistant Chief of Police in Goodlettsville (city where it happened), and a Nashville lawyer. Everyone I spoke with advised me that I was not responsible according to the law, but that an insurance company can make decisions that contradict the driving laws because they are only determining fault in the eyes of the insurance company rather than determining guilt or innocence and imposing a fine/jail sentence. And they agreed on the insanity of it all.

After almost 3 full days of silence, I got a call yesterday from someone on the other side asking where I wanted my car repaired. Confused, I told them we hadn't quite settled on whose policy was paying which percentage... then she told me they had just agreed to pay 100% of my damages, deductible, and rental car costs out of the other driver's policy. I'll be giving the repair business to the dealership that was so helpful at the scene. I'll not be choosing State Farm as my insurance company in July when I get my own policy. And I'll not be shopping in the Dillard's shoe department ever again because, in a close encounter last week, I discovered that is where the other driver works.

So, 30 days and 3 migraines later, justice prevailed. It helped that I do persuasive writing for a living.