Auto Collision = No Photos????

[Anonymous]

Hard to believe that people in the past did not typically take photos immediately after an automobile accident and just waited for an adjuster to survey the damage.

It would be so easy for the people involved in the accident to cover up many things.

[Anonymous]

I was an auto claims adjuster in the DC area in the late 90s and RARELY did the people involved in the accident take pictures at the scene. It definitely was NOT the norm. Between police reports, witness statements, and vehicle damage (which estimators or body shops took pictures of) the claim could be sorted out between the insurance companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t even understand the question. For decades we all got along without any photos at all. The car damage tells the story.

I have to disagree with this.
People have always taken photos and used them as solid evidence after a car crash.
It’s just that they had to use Poloroids or wait for the film to develop.
But pictures have always been used to prove guilt or innocence.

In this day and age, a person who files an accident claim with their auto insurance would need a good explanation why they did not have any photos of the aftermath.
Most people carry smartphones on them which have cameras.

I am sorry but without any photographic evidence there is a huge chance your cousin’s case will be incomplete and she will lose.

What are you talking about? Cameras/Polaroids were never standard items people drove around with in their car in case they might get into a crash. Silly.

I disagree.
After getting into a car accident, most motorists needed to take photos of the physical damage done to their vehicle at the accident scene.
So for cases of emergencies - they would carry disposable cameras in their glove compartments.
Because in filing an accident claim with their auto insurance, how else could they document evidence that an accident even occurred??

Especially without a police report or any witness accounts.

I’ve been driving for 30 years and no this is not something that “most motorists” did. At all. How long would a disposable camera last in a glove compartment in the DC heat?

[Anonymous]

Why would you take photos if at fault?

My insurance company actually recommends if I am at fault. So the following.

If car runs drive it to legal spot and get out. Like you were over line, hit side of car why document that.

Exchange info. If no one hurt leave before cops arrive. Some even leave a photo copy if ID card and leave.

[Anonymous]

If you do not take photos, or in the past, did not have a camera available, then the practice is to have your car towed or drive your car immediately to a repair shop. You want to have the car in the shop immediately after the accident so that the shop can attest to the fact that you did not add any damage after the fact to the car. Then the insurance adjuster can visit and take photos and the shop can do damage assessment of the vehicle.

The danger is if you do not take photos at the time and then you drive the car home or have a gap between the accident and when the body shop and the insurance adjuster can access the vehicle. Once you have that gap of time, there is the introduction of doubt that you may have added damage to your vehicle after the accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, by default she would have to front her deductible before any body damage to her vehicle will be repaired. If she is found at fault, then her insurance will pay for the repairs to her car however her premium rates may double. If she is found to not be responsible for the collision, then the other person’s insurance will reimburse her insurance for the cost to get the car fixed. She may likely get her deductible reimbursed by the other insurance company as well.

If she doesn’t have any photos of the damage done at the scene then the other person’s pictures will be the only legit proof of damages. It is very likely your cousin will be found at fault for not having any physical evidence to produce. Her insurance adjuster can always ask the other person’s insurance for their copies but the other insurance is not obligated to give them.

All in all, without photos of the damage your cousin has zero tangible proof that an accident occurred or that she incurred any damages. She likely will lose the case based on lack of tangible physical evidence. Hard life lesson learned.

they are if they are going to subrogate their insured's claim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe that people in the past did not typically take photos immediately after an automobile accident and just waited for an adjuster to survey the damage.

It would be so easy for the people involved in the accident to cover up many things.

Well believe it. That was the norm then, and isn't really outside the norm now.

[Anonymous]

Photos of damage immediately after an auto accident are very pivotal parts that are used in an investigation.