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.

Not evwryone carried a disposable or Polaroid camera. You would take your car to the claims adjustor or they would come to you. They could see the damage to your car.

Anonymous wrote:Oh and there usually is a 2 yr statute of limitations on when the other driver can be sued for damages to be recovered.

That’s VA. MD and DC are 3. And OP’s cousin will get the photos in discovery. There might also be video evidence from local businesses, ring cameras etc.

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.

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.

Oh and there usually is a 2 yr statute of limitations on when the other driver can be sued for damages to be recovered.

That is strange that your own insurance did not ask you to submit photos of your own after the accident.

However I am not experienced enough to understand the process of the apps that some companies may be using now.

Subrogation is typically when your auto insurance attempts to recover money from the other person’s auto insurance.
After speaking w/you and receiving your photos, witness statements and police reports if any, they then proceed to get your car into an auto body repair shop stat to begin repairs.
They cover the entire cost after you pay the deductible first.

Their goal is to get the amount they pay reimbursed along with your deductible so they decide between the two insurance companies who is at fault.

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.

Huh? Can't she take photos now? Anyway, the adjuster will either take photos or have her do it on their app.

Speaking of which, I did take photos of both cars and the other driver's license in a recent accident that wasn't my fault, but I never sent them to anyone. The adjuster wanted specific photos that their app guided me though.

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.

Huh? Can't she take photos now? Anyway, the adjuster will either take photos or have her do it on their app.

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.

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

Doesn't agree on the suggestion that her premium rates would double. It all depends on her prior history of accidents and if she has been accident free for last 5 years.

I know Geico doesn't raise the rates if it is only one second within last 5 years.

Who gets involved in an auto accident but doesn’t take ANY photos? Especially if they may be at fault?

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.

Even if she is at fault, won't she just have to pay her deductible? I have a hard time believing that insurance companies are able to do any type of legit investigation after the fact. Most police departments won't even write an accident report unless there are injuries and/or major damage. I used to live in a state that was "no fault," so it wasn't really an issue. You would just report it to your insurance company and that's about it.

My cousin just called me this evening saying that she hit another vehicle in a side-impact collision.

The other car has heavy passenger side damage and it appears the car’s pillar may have been compromised (my uncle’s opinion.)
My cousin’s SUV sustained front driver fender damage.
I told her it is likely that she will be held liable, but she intends to fight any responsibility for the crash.
Bad idea, but I don’t know the intricate details since I wasn’t involved.

This is the weird part.
She didn’t have her cell phone in her purse, she claims she was letting her son borrow it.
So at the accident scene she took zero photos of the two cars involved.

She asked the other driver to text her the pictures that he took but he refused.
She still is going to file a claim with her insurance company.

How is this even possible without photographic damage proof?