Property Damage Claims: My Dad's Battle with Ameriprise and Thoughts on Handling Property Damage Claims Without a Lawyer
Last year, my Dad was in an auto accident where the Defendant admittedly ran a red light. Believing in his superhuman ability to drive an automobile, he did not have collision insurance on his car.
The insurance company, which shall remain nameless (Ameriprise), denied liability claiming that my father did not react quickly enough to avoid the accident Ameriprise's theory of the case was that Dad is 71 years-old and therefore must have reacted too slowly to avoid the accident. What Ameriprise didn’t know is that my father was driving home from playing three grueling sets of tennis in the summer heat with me. I'll bet money he can react better than the Ameriprise adjuster that denied the claim.
So I sent them a draft complaint and discovery in the case and they quickly changed adjusters, accepted liability, and threw in $500 for his injury claim even though he never sought any medical treatment (which we never would have asked for had they simply paid on the property damage claim).
But the whole thing got me to thinking about the incredible disadvantage property damage victims find themselves facing in these situations. No halfway decent accident lawyer is going to consider getting into a property damage liability dispute case. So property damage victims are forced to file a lawsuit on their own. In Maryland, if the claim is over $5,000, there are procedural requirements that are going to slip up the vast majority of property damage claims made by plaintiffs.
I do not have any remedy to this problem but I did put together a list of tips for those that find themselves in a similar situation handling your own property damage claim without a lawyer that you can find by clicking on the link in this paragraph.

Comments
sounds like the carrier used the last clear chance defense in a contributory negligence state. I don't think your telling the whole story, but what would one expect from a PI attorney...Thanks
Posted by: baba booyer t | October 15, 2008 1:04 PM
With all due respect, "last clear chance" is not a defense asserted by defendants in Maryland. It is asserted by plaintiffs. The last clear chance doctrine is a plaintiff's defense to a defendant's claim that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.The doctrine of last clear chance permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover damages from a negligent defendant if each of the following elements is satisfied: (1) the defendant is at fault; (2) the plaintiff is contributorily negligent; and (iii) the plaintiff makes a showing of something new or sequential, which affords the defendant a fresh opportunity (of which he fails to avail herself or himself) to avert the consequences of his own original negligence.
This has been the law of Maryland for the last 140 years.
Posted by: Ron Miller | October 15, 2008 1:14 PM