How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Lucy, Esq. Your Own Question
Lucy, Esq.
Lucy, Esq., Lawyer
Category: Traffic Law
Satisfied Customers: 30365
Experience:  Lawyer. Former judicial law clerk. Worked for District Attorney's Office in Traffic Court.
26798026
Type Your Traffic Law Question Here...
Lucy, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Lucy again, hope to review my previous questions to refresh

Customer Question

Hello Lucy again, hope to review my previous questions to refresh your mind of my case. I have contacted my attorney based on your advice. He shared with me some of his reports of my case, I tried to be cooperative, however, he and the plaintiff attorney is looking for my admission for liability that I didn't turn back my head when I intended to move my car backward (this is when I supposedly contact the plaintiff in physical). Please keep in mind, that the police report indicate that I told the officer that I didn't turn my head back when I move my car backward, however there is no witness prove this so far. my question is, should I admit this or not? are there any consequences in case I admit this? will the insurance company use this (let's say negligence) to deny any financial claim and use it against me? for example in case the court asked me to compensate the plaintiff with some certain amount of money.
Submitted: 2 months ago.
Category: Traffic Law
Expert:  Lucy, Esq. replied 2 months ago.

Good morning,

If you admit that you didn't turn your head before backing up, that tends to show that you were negligent. If you're negligent, then a judge would find that you caused the accident (or the near miss, in this case). And that means a judgment would be entered against you, which the insurance company would pay. When parties are negotiating a settlement, it's common to include language that says paying is not an admission of guilt. Your lawyer should be able to get that type of language for you.

With that said, the police officer can come to court and testify that you told him you weren't looking, so I don't know that confirming it is going to hurt you. You may want to ask why your lawyer wants you to admit it, since that's not terribly common.

The insurance company is paid to insure you against negligence, so that should not be a basis for refusing to pay the claim, but read the policy or ask your lawyer to review it for you.

If you have any questions or concerns about my response, please reply WITHOUT RATING. It's important that you are 100% satisfied with my courtesy and professionalism. Otherwise, please rate my service positively so I am paid for the time I spend answering questions. If you are on a mobile device, you may need to scroll to the right. There is no charge for follow-up questions. Thank you.

Customer: replied 2 months ago.
Morning Lucy!. Many thanks.Don't you think if I show that I can not recall if I turn my head back or not, which is almost true. don't you think this should be a safer way to prevent admitting this negligence, as I still afraid this might used against me not only in the court but with the insurance company after trail. what is your opinion?.This type of conversation which I felt it with you, I didn't feel it with my lawyer, which made me hesitated and more conservative in my answers to his inquiries. I don't want to say something that might used against me. I am sorry, I might be quite paranoid, or overreacting. this is my first time to get into troubles!. should I be this conservative?, as my attorney is hired by the insurance company and not by myself, which makes me quite not trust him!. Please advise me if I am totally wrong. why I am feeling that way, it is because in his previous reports, he was showing that his client (myself) is covered by $15,000 insurance, and he didn't mentioned the supplemental coverage which I purchased which covered me up to $1,000,000. when I talked to him about this, he said, and I am quoting "Regarding your insurance coverage, we are not coverage counsel and cannot provide you any assessment with regard to insurance coverage. We have been retained by your carrier as your defense counsel. We are submitting our defense fees and invoices to your carrier for payment pursuant to our retention. We will get your information with regard to what your stated policy limits are, but again we cannot confirm or analyze any coverage position" end. However, when the plaintiff's attorney send some papers (discovery), and asked us to fill it, I insist to my attorney to mention my full insurance coverage limit (which is $1,000,000), and he did. Fortunately, I downloaded my case documents from the court website, and I found a formal statement from my rental car's manager stating that myself had purchased a supplemental insurance coverage up to $1,000,000. my question is: what if the insurance company deny this coverage? what if, if they insist that the coverage that I can get is only the 15k. and I should pay the rest of the judgment. Is this really might happen?? what are my options if it happened??. keeping in mind that I live abroad.The second issue is that my attorney is seeking to know my opinion if I would video tape myself to show my deposition. what I should do?. is it mandatory to film my deposition, what if I didn't?. what are the consequences?. I am quite confused.
Expert:  Lucy, Esq. replied 2 months ago.

As a lawyer, I cannot suggest that anyone state something that is "almost true" when litigating. You don't have to say anything.

Again, the insurance company can't come after you. This is why you pay for insurance. And once the case is settled, the other party can't sue you personally. That's part of the settlement agreement. If they were planning to deny coverage, they would have done so before now. They cannot provide any less coverage than what is written in the policy.

The insurance company's lawyer is representing you here, because you and the insurance company have similar interests - not paying the other person.

You're not required to film your deposition, but it can help a lot with trial preparation to have a video you can watch.