The saying goes that 'truth is stranger than fiction' and there are many cases to prove it's true. The saying correctly is, "Truth is strange, indeed stranger than fiction" and was penned by mad, bad Lord Byron who, when he died, was buried in two different countries; his heart in Greece and the rest in England. How's that for proving a point?
But Byron would be challenged for weird and whacky results when it comes to people who make car insurance claims following an accident.
If we have an accident and have insurance, we want to get our vehicle repaired with as little financial pain as possible and we certainly don't want to be sued by the other driver or drivers. Whoever is to blame for the accident, we usually have an inbuilt tendency to follow the old adage, "never explain, never apologise". But insurance companies have been around a while and want to reduce their payouts as much as possible.
So we have the situation where the driver wants an out and the insurer wants the facts. And as can be seen, never the twain shall meet.
I mean what does the insurer understand to be the situation at the accident scene when their client states, "I swerved to avoid an invisible car and that's when I had the collision"? Or, "I was about to collide with the first car so changed direction to avoid that potential collision and then hit the second car". You wonder if the clients are serious when they make such statements as, "The other driver changed his mind which caused me to run into his vehicle" or "The radiator water in my car froze late at night as I was driving which forced me to drive into the ditch".
The mind does boggle at times and you wonder if the claimants are gullible or trying it on. Was the insured hoping to get a payout when he said, "I drove into the wrong driveway and hit a tree that is not on my property"? I mean what is the IQ of some motorists when they have to fill-in a claim form after an accident and to the question, "Could either driver have done anything reasonable to avoid the accident?" writes, "One of us could have travelled by bus".
Then the ridiculous and downright dangerous kicks in when one insured driver offered the explanation that, "My dog is very possessive about my car but I would never have allowed the dog to drive it if I thought there was any risk".
Mind you telling the truth is always the best policy. One insured person was in control of his car when it struck a cow. On the claim form to the question, "What warning was given by the other party?" the driver wrote, "Moo".
The Insurance Advisors @ Guthrie Insurance Brokers Ltd
Toronto – (416) 487-5200 – 1-888-310-SAVE (7283)
E & OE