Had a lovely experience with a hit & run accident this weekend, which was somehow improved by state farm.
Order of events:
1) driving down road, make eye contact with man in van waiting at stop sign
2) man looks opposite direction from me, then pulls out and T-bones me
3) we egress from our respective vehicles and ask if either party is injured
4) man says “why didn’t you stop?”
5) I reply “because I didn’t have a stop sign.”
6) he replies: “I’m from Tijuana”
7) he hops in his van and drives away, calling my tienneman style bluff
8) incident reported to police, includes four digits of man’s baja license plate number, witnesses
9) I call state farm and explain situation…
10) state farm informs me that I’m on the hook for a collision deductible
11) I ask if the uninsured motorist coverage applies (zero deductible policy)
12) Response: If you can positively identify the vehicle and driver, then prove he doesn’t have insurance, it will
13) I reply: ” So the ‘ I’m from tijuana ‘ –corroborated by the Baja plate, followed by the attempt to run me over while leaving the scene forces us to assume that the man is insured unless proven otherwise?”
14) “Yeah, I think they’re changing that law in a couple of years, but for now that’s how it works”
1) California law is really beneficial to insurance companies in this case
2) State farm is trying to convince its customers it is not responsible for coverage because California law is really beneficial to insurance companies in this case.
Just thought I’d share this tale of pleasure to see if there was any agreement about which of the last 2 observations was correct.
— BEN POPKEN