Stl Bills Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Sorry for the length of this post but its kind of nessecary in order to explain the entire situation. Here's what happened, about 2 months ago I purchased a new Cadillac CTS. I had the car for a whopping 7 days when I was involved in an accident on I-70 here in Saint Louis. I was traveling in the fastlane when an SUV in front of me blew a tire and came to a complete stop. The tire was so badly shredded that the SUV really had no chance of slowly merging off the highway onto the shoulder. Right before the accident I had noticed an F-350 Super Duty Pick-Up hauling a large boat had merged behind me into the fastlane. When the accident occured I was forced to SLAM on my breaks in order to come to a stop and not strike the SUV. Being the safe driver I am I had given myself plenty of room to come to a complete stop and avoid running into the back of the SUV. I looked in my rearview only to see the truck towing the boat was not really slowing down, at the last second the driver swerved to miss me but the boat and trailer side swiped my new car and ended up doing just about an even 5k in damage. The driver did a good job to avoid killing me but had really only given himself about 100 feet of following distance, not ample room to avoid an accident.............obviously. The police were called and a report was filed claiming the truck was at fault. The best part of the whole story is that the vehicle and the boat were actually owned by the US goverment......it was a surveying boat for the US Army Corps of Engineers and the truck was used to transport the boat. Both the driver and passenger were govt employees and the truck carries no insurance as it is a govt vehicle and is self-insured. I had to file a tort claim with the govt. for all personal expenses incurred. I was told I had a "slam dunk" case by their lawyer untill this morning when I got this email at work............ ------------------------------------------ Good morning, Mr. Strang. I wanted to provide you with some photos and documentation that I've received. This has gotten more complicated than I thought, and I wanted to share what I've found so far and get your thoughts. The combined weight of the boat and trailer in this accident was about 10,000 lbs. The trailer requires its own braking system, but it has one that is normally very effective. Our driver, Mr. Bolton, reports that he was following at about 60 mph or less, but had about double the normal following distance when the SUV suddenly stopped. He had me "step off" his following distance, which I estimate at about 600'. Mr. Bolton stated that he should have been able to easily stop in this distance if the trailer brakes had not unexpectedly failed. As it happened, he stopped the truck-trailer using the truck brakes alone. I examined the trailer braking system when Mr. Bolton brought the truck, trailer, and boat to my office. There is a 7-pin connector wire that plugs into a receptacle on the Ford. There is a trailer brake controller and display in the dashboard of the truck. If the brakes are not connected, the display reads, "No Trailer Connection" (Photo 003). Under normal circumstances, the display shows a numeric figure indicating the boost to the brakes (Photo 000, except that when I took the picture, the brakes weren't being applied so it shows -0-). According to Mr. Bolton, the display indicated proper connection and a power boost of 13.2, which is normal. However, the brakes failed to work at the time of the accident. According to Mr. Bolton, this was entirely unexpected because the Ford truck and trailer had been driven from Kansas City to Mokane, where the boat was used, then they drove to Foristell (Exit 203) on I-70 for refueling, which was only a few miles from the accident scene (MM 223). At no time prior to the accident did Mr. Bolton experience any problems with the trailer brakes prior to the accident. After the accident, Mr. Bolton took the truck to the Ford dealer, who determined that the truck's brakes were good, but the 7-pin connector plug was bad, so they replaced it (see repair bill). Mr. Bolton and his crew checked the trailer brakes themselves and determined there was no problem with them other than the connection. According to Mr. Bolton, the problem was that the bad plug was feeding power to the trailer lights and the dashboard display, but the power source to the brakes themselves was not getting through. Hence, even though all the lights were working when they left Mokane, and even though the dashboard display showed that the trailer was connected and all systems were normal, in reality there was no power getting through to the brakes. Mr. Bolton said that there was no way anyone could have known this except by using a special test instrument. Even then, however, it appears that the electrical fault was intermittent, as evidenced by the fact the brakes were working normally at Foristell. For us to pay your claim, you have to prove that the accident was the result of negligence. Normally a rear-end collision is an open-and-shut case, but in this situation the accident seems to just have been a freak electrical fault that no one could have predicted. I am NOT finished with my investigation and this is NOT a determination on your claim. I intend to interview the passenger in the Ford, locate a trailer brake expert of my own, and to research Missouri laws and cases. In the meantime, however, please review the information provided and let me know your thoughts. I will gladly consider any additional evidence. Perhaps you could locate a trailer expert of your own? Please call me if you have any questions. John ****** Assistant District Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you believe this sh*t? I could care less about your faulty equipment! Sounds like a lot of "not my ing problem. So I called Mr. John and had a little conversation with him regarding the incident. He told me that "hes not supposed to be advising me but the easiest thing for me to do is to just pay my deducatable in order to get my car fixed and get this matter resolved". I informed him that I would be contacting my insurance but no way in hell was I paying my deductable but I was turning this over for them to pursue. He also asked "why don't you file suit against the SUV, they caused the accident?" I replied by saying "because I wasn't involved in a ing accident with that car and if I had of hit them I would have rear-ended them and they would be suing me!. And the SUV didn't cause the accident, your driver did by not giving himself enough room to come to a complete stop." This is rediculous, pretty sure my insurance company will be able to handle it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LewPort71 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I see this settled some time in 2011..(maybe) Be patient.. and good luck.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 A brand new Cadillac CTS? Hire an attorney. A good attorney will shove that cotter pin Bullshiit story up their ass. Good Luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 It's time for someone to start calling the local newspapers where the Assistant District Council is based, and get them a copy of the letter. The one thing newspapers like to do more than scare the shiit out of people is use the ink to bust the nuts of people in position of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Whatever you do, do it soon. There may be pretty strict statue of limitation requirements when suing a sovreign (could be as little as 90 days). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 So you're wanting to sue the federal government? Been nice knowin' ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Take the fed to judge judy. she'd see through their bull sh-- in 30 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted July 8, 2008 Author Share Posted July 8, 2008 So you're wanting to sue the federal government? Been nice knowin' ya. What do you suggest I do, bake them a fuggin cake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 It's time for someone to start calling the local newspapers where the Assistant District Council is based, and get them a copy of the letter. The one thing newspapers like to do more than scare the shiit out of people is use the ink to bust the nuts of people in position of power. That's right. Ambush journalism that started in the early '70's has been the norm ever since. Portraying a public official as a prevaricating sap gets a reporter one of those hundreds of awards they hand out to each other every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 So what they are telling you if I understand this correctly, is that their truck, hauling a boat, may have had a defective electric brake on the trailer, which malfunctioned and did not allow the trailer brakes to engage, and it cause damage to your vehicle when it tried to swerve away from getting into an accident. So they are saying that since their equipment may have not been working properly, its not their fault but yours? I'd like to see you try that excuse on them sometime and see what they say. If it was their equipment that was faulty, would they be responsible for the damage to your vehicle, and then they would be responsible for trying to maybe recoup the damages from the manufacturer of the trailer brakes if they could prove they malfunctioned due to a faulty unit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 What do you suggest I do, bake them a fuggin cake? Listen, lawyers ask for crap they never expect to get all the time, it is their job. I for one, want this guy to do exactly what he is doing, which is looking out for the interests of the tax paying US citizen. He was hoping you would just file a claim with your insurance, or say something stupid when you talked to him etc to get the gov out of paying. No issues on my end, like I said it is why organiztions have in house attorneys. Now, it is a pain in the ass for you, but the whole equipment was bad, so therefore not my clients fault is so assinine as to be comical. At least thats what i think, but again i only play a lawyer on TBD. Send your note to your insurance agent and let him and your insurance folks deal, no worries I would think, you will get made whole after a little frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeFerguson Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Listen, lawyers ask for crap they never expect to get all the time, it is their job. I for one, want this guy to do exactly what he is doing, which is looking out for the interests of the tax paying US citizen. He was hoping you would just file a claim with your insurance, or say something stupid when you talked to him etc to get the gov out of paying. No issues on my end, like I said it is why organiztions have in house attorneys. Now, it is a pain in the ass for you, but the whole equipment was bad, so therefore not my clients fault is so assinine as to be comical. At least thats what i think, but again i only play a lawyer on TBD. Send your note to your insurance agent and let him and your insurance folks deal, no worries I would think, you will get made whole after a little frustration. So basically this letter is just testing to see if they can dupe him into getting his own insurance company to pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 For us to pay your claim, you have to prove that the accident was the result of negligence. Normally a rear-end collision is an open-and-shut case, but in this situation the accident seems to just have been a freak electrical fault that no one could have predicted. I am NOT finished with my investigation and this is NOT a determination on your claim. I intend to interview the passenger in the Ford, locate a trailer brake expert of my own, and to research Missouri laws and cases. In the meantime, however, please review the information provided and let me know your thoughts. I will gladly consider any additional evidence. Perhaps you could locate a trailer expert of your own? I had an insurance company feed me the same pile of BS last fall. I was covering a HS football game for the local paper, using my own laptop, and during halftime the winter storm window in the press box fell out of the track and landed on the computer. Never touched by anyone during the game, nothing - just dropped out of the track and crashed on the laptop. The laptop case was cracked in two places but no major hardware damage (at least that I could discern.) So I filed a claim with the school's insurance company, thinking that they would at least pay for repairs. Insurance company fought me all the way, saying that the window and track appeared to be functional, and they couldn't be sure that it was a school employee's negligence (i.e., someone cleaned the glass and knocked it off the track) so they denied the claim. I finally gave up and let it go, because it wasn't worth my time to take them to small claims court. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 So basically this letter is just testing to see if they can dupe him into getting his own insurance company to pay for it? Thats what I would think. Kinda on the principal you can never get what you do not ask for. For example, I sell sofware for a living. When we get down to the contract piece, the in house lawyers ask for all kinds of crazy stuff, our lawyer comes back and asks for even crazier stuff, then the make nice and say to their boss;eh, I tried, but here is where we ended up". No need to get worked up, that is kinda what they want you to do, as you make bad decisions when you are mad and emotional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 was exiled driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 was exiled driving? Probably! But seriously, this what you pay insurance for. Contact your claims adjuster and provide them the document. But stay on them to do their job or they might gaff you off and find it 'no fault'. I'm not sure what the laws are like in MO, but I had a similar accident here in California where a guy backed into me and claimed i hit him. I knew that fugger was full of schit and fought it. After hounding my insurance adjuster, I got him to look at the guys vehicle and ultimately they sided with me and both insurance companies found the other driver at fault. The bottom line is 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'. Stay on them and it'll work out just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I didn't read the entire post, but what are you out besides your collision deductible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I didn't read the entire post, but what are you out besides your collision deductible? And PS, your insurance company cannot subrogate for you in MOST federal tort claims and you're on your own for your deductible. (actually every time your insurance carriers goes after the other insurer, you deductible is included as a courtesy as one can only subrogate for something they paid -- but Federal Tort claims are specifically a B word). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Two things come to mind. This Mr. Bolton guy is quite the expert. and.... What kind of boat are they using for surveying that wieghs over 10K lbs (even with a trailer)? A destroyer? I have a similar brake controller set up in my F-250 and horse trailer. I can tell immediately when stopping any time an adjustment is made to the boost settings on the controller. If the controller had malfunctioned at all before, the guy would have noticed it even if he was just slowing down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Wow that is really crappy, I would turn it over to your insurance company and let them sue the gov. to recover the payout amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts