Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Accident, Icbc claims its nothing, car fails mechanically.?

Hi guys, I'm new to Yahoo, I'm unsure if I'm posting at the right place but please bare with me.

I had a minor accident (not my fault) about 3-4 months ago, where this guy swerved in front of me into the "left-turn only" over a SOLID white line. I was already traveling in the left turn only lane and i couldn't stop in time because i wasn't expecting him to do something so reckless.

The impact was not "big", as i tried to swerve to the left abit(could not swerve anymore, cause there was an island block there) to avoid direct front to his rear/trunk impact. Inevitably, my passenger's side bumper/fender was scraped, and his drivers side (where the gas cap) was scrapped. I knew it was his fault, so I gathered his information, and later on I reported it to ICBC. Surprisingly, he reported to ICBC before I did, and he claims, i was tail gating him and hence the accident occur.

Standard procedures, I got my vehicle inspected at ICBC, but here's the tricky part.

My 1997 cr-v, had some cosmetic damage already, and some in the front bumper/fender area, so that given, it had either already been in an accident before and they claim that there was no "NEW" damage. Although I admit, there was already some damage there before, they did not really look any further, and I'm assuming they just assumed it was something very minor and not mechanical.

I can't help but to think, how can ICBC possibly say that when they didn't even jack it up to see, or inspect under the hood, or my alignment or what not.

So at the time, they convinced me to just drop the claim, but given the fact how the opposition wanted to counter-claim saying I TAIL GATED him, and hit him from behind, just flat out pissed me off, because it only shows how many false claims there are out there.

3-4 months down the road, I now have transmission leak, failed cooling system, failed rack and pinion that was replaced 40,000km ago (hell shouldnt break that fast.. they should last aleast a long time right?) and possibly much more, but i just dont know yet and could it be from that accident that they CLAIMED, was nothing.

I cant drive the car, cause the rack and pinion is messed up. and i dont want to replace it using my money, cause i just replaced it 40,000km ago.

Is there any way i can dig up that claim again, or is it long gone, and should i document it in my head so it never happens again in the future?

Any advice/tips from any personal experience would help direly.

Thank you for reading! Happy holidays!

Update:

PLEASE NOTE, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT. ICBC acknowledges I'm not the one at fault. The other person is 100% at fault. Case is closed.

I did CALL the police at the time, but they said no body was injured or hurt, so they told me to just exchange registration and license plate number.

I was there at the time of the inspection with my gf, and the inspector only looked at it cosmetically, saying my vehicle is old, not worth fixing (the bumper) but what about it mechanically? Would you had insisted to get it checked ELSE where, or does ICBC rule all? Thanks.

I hope this additional info was helpful.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    If a car accident causes a car to leak, then it does that immediately. If the car does not leak for 3-4 months after the accident, and then it starts leaking, then the accident did not cause the leak.

  • 8 years ago

    You just learned why you ALWAYS get law enforcement involved in a crash as soon as it happens. The liability is on you now. It is your word against his and those never go well for either party. The accident should have been investigated at the scene and the car inspected immediately. There is no way to tie this to the accident after the fact.

    Source(s): Former Deputy Sheriff.
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    If I'm know-how this correct it sounds such as you have been pulling out of a car park to show left onto a freeway. The freeway is four lanes on each side. The two lanes of site visitors closest to you, heading the reverse means of the best way you have been turning stopped to will let you pull out in entrance of them to show. The woman that hit you was once traveling within the third lane over (out of the four lanes that you just have been crossing in entrance of to show)? If that is the case than you're at fault. The woman that hit you had the correct of means. Even regardless that the two lanes of site visitors have been waving you on, you continue to didn't have the correct of means. It does not subject that her brakes have been going out. I have labored as an coverage agent for the beyond nine.five years & I have visible a couple of injuries similar to this one. In they all, the character that was once pulling out in entrance of site visitors to show left was once deemed at fault. Hope this is helping.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.