Insurance Policy - Zero Visibility

[LOSO]

Hey,

Does anyone know what the insurance policy is regarding zero visibility weather conditions?

So what happened was, I drove from Brampton to Kincardine (work at Bruce Power) this morning (left at around 6 am). The roads were decent up until Highway 9 and Bruce Road 20. So after I passed Side Road 25, there were a few instances where there was literally ZERO VISIBILITY due to the wind blowing around the snow horizontally. It was so bad... worse than fog. All you see is white. So for the first couple of times I was okay since I was behind someone. But then he disappeared and I had no one in front of me. So I was driving, then all of a sudden I'm blinded by the snow blowing horizontally, so I slow down because I know there are probably other cars there slowing down as well. Then the next thing you know, BAM! I hit the rear of some car. Didn't even have time to react to it. I only saw the car until after I hit it.

So when I get out of my car, I see the car that I hit (no one was inside when I hit it), and an SUV with a lady in it. So I later find out that the lady hit the guy first on the left rear corner of his bumper, so she wasn't behind him after she hit him. I then hit this guy's car.

So after I got on Bruce Road 20, it got closed down. Obviously if I knew it was closed I wouldn't have gone on that road. So my question is, am I at fault? I was driving maybe 50 km/hr; I was driving at a speed that would give me sufficient time to stop - when I actually could see what was in front of me. Is it my fault for hitting something I couldn't see? Even if I was driving slower I still would've hit it, as I couldn't see anything.

[SickFinga]

Yes, it is your fault. You supposed to drive according to weather condition. If there was zero visibility, you should've stopped.

BTW, the car that you hit, was it on the road? Lights/hazads on? If it was on the road with no lights at all, you might use that to reduce your fault.

[El Gato Liso]

oh no man. teggy? you alright?

[davericher20]

I'm with sickfinga on this. Though not a car insurance expert, it sounds like they would nail you because you were driving in zero visibility.

[craigIS]

It's your fault for sure.

I was driving to work yesterday, and visibility would have been considered zero, and I was doing less than 50km. I was going 20Km at some points, because there was no visibility, and because of drifting snow. You should have stopped and waited for the wind to calm down, which it wouldn't have, or turned around, and gone home. Your employer can't hold it against you. I, on the other hand, need the money, and am not that smart hahaha.

[hockeyfan27]

Whether the car you hit was just involved in a collision or just broken down, unfortunately, when you collide with a stopped vehicle - you are at fault.

Sorry to hear about your bad luck. I hope no one was injured.

[LOSO]

Yes the car was in the middle of the road. No hazards, no lights on or anything.

I was trying to stop. It's not like i can stop on a dime.

And how is it my fault for driving in zero visibility? Am I supposed to just stop in the middle of the road and wait to get hit? I was on the road already... for 1.5 hours everything was fine up until that road. They never said anything on the radio about the road being closed. There was no damn barrier when I got on it.

The OPP didn't charge me because he saw how bad it was out. When he was driving me home, he was doing about 40 - 50 km/hr. With the way he was driving, if there was a car on the road we would've hit it, because we got blinded and he hit a huge ass snow drift.

[hockeyfan27]

Originally Posted by LOSO

Yes the car was in the middle of the road. No hazards, no lights on or anything.

I was trying to stop. It's not like i can stop on a dime.

And how is it my fault for driving in zero visibility? Am I supposed to just stop in the middle of the road and wait to get hit?...

Let me start by saying, I'm just the messenger... please don't me.

How isn't it your fault? You chose to continue driving in zero visibility. No one put a gun to your head and said, "DRIVE".

I've seen convictions for: "driving too fast for the conditions". You dodged that bullet.

There are MANY scenarios where it's not 100% fair to get stuck with the fault. You are waiting to make a left turn in the middle of an intersection; a car comes straight through and clips the left corner of your bumper, its your fault. If a jerk cuts you off to merge at the end of an on ramp then stomps on his breaks 'cause the traffic stops and you rear end him, it is 100% your fault. A car beside you starts a lane change without doing a shoulder check, you swerve - miss them and hit the car beside you = your fault. If you can't see and you keep driving and hit the car in front of you, it's your fault. You hit black ice and play pin-ball between the guard rails, it's your fault AND you have to pay to fix the guard rails.

If you had stopped and "waited to get hit" that would not have been your fault.

[sirex]

Ontario = no fault insurance..

dont matter whos fault it is.

[hockeyfan27]

Originally Posted by sirex

Ontario = no fault insurance..

dont matter whos fault it is.

You're kidding, right?

[damameke]

Originally Posted by hockeyfan27

You're kidding, right?

there is mis-understanding about no fault insurance...

my take is that fault is still assigned but claim is paid by both insurance companies hence the no fault insurance....

[hockeyfan27]

You got it. To elaborate a bit...

Fault is determined with regard to which driver is responsible for causing the accident. Generally the fault is assigned as: 100%/0%, 50%/50%, or 75%/25%. This is reflected in the deductible you pay. If you are 50% at fault, you pay 50% of your collision deductible. If you are 25% at fault, most companies will not hold that against you. (i see this extremely rarely)

Under Ontario's previous tort based system, the policy of the 'at fault' driver would pay for the damage to both vehicles.

Under our current "No Fault" system, each vehicle is repaired through the coverages offered by their respective insurance companies. The fault determination has no bearing on the fiscal responsibility of the insurer to their client/insured.

To un-insurance jargon it: The company that sold you the policy pays the repair tab (that is if you purchased the coverage, ie: collision) for the cars they cover, regardless of which driver caused the accident. No fault is considered. Hence the mis-leading title of the system.

This is a common mis-conception, that is until you have the unfortunate happenstance to be at fault' for a claim.

Sorry Sirex, I thought you were messing around =)

[SickFinga]

Originally Posted by hockeyfan27

Whether the car you hit was just involved in a collision or just broken down, unfortunately, when you collide with a stopped vehicle - you are at fault.

Sorry to hear about your bad luck. I hope no one was injured.

I'm not an expert, but wouldn't he be able to use the "no lights in the middle of the road" as an excuse to reduce his fault?

[hockeyfan27]

If your car is dead due to an electrical issue and the lights aren't working, should you be held partially responsible for someone rear ending your car?

There is a rule somewhere that if someone is parked in a no parking zone outside of city limits and you collide with their vehicle, they are partially responsible. I believe that rule excludes break-down and standing and would likely not apply in severe weather conditions.

The best case scenario, if they split the fault, would be 75% his fault and that is the same thing as 100% for his driving record / future policies. It's not worth the fight.

Now, if they other driver was in their car and was suing for injuries, that is a different story.

[tg07lq]

so with only having basic liability ( for when i hit someone) will my insurance still have to pay to fix my car should someone hit me? or will their insurance pay to fix it?
just so long as someone pays to fix my car! haha