Here is the situation in US, Washington state:
- a car collision happened between A and B
- a police made a report claiming that party A is at fault (not available to insurance companies at this point)
- B's insurance claims that A's fault is 100%
- A's insurance after talking to A driver assessed the fault as shared, with 15% on party A and 85% at party B
- A's damage is minimal, A has comprehensive coverage
- B's damage is substantial, B does not have comprehensive coverage
Basically, A's insurance has decided that they will only compensate 15% for B, leaving the rest up to the B driver out-of-pocket (since they don't have comprehensive).
B's insurance is instructing their client B to talk to A driver directly and convince them to convince A's insurance that the fault should be split more evenly, better yet 100% on A. "A" doesn't really care if their insurance pays off, as long as they are not personally held responsible.
- We are the possible scenarios to resolve this?
- Is my understanding correct that A cannot be held liable for A's insurance decision or any damages A's insurance refuses to cover?
- Can B's insurance or client B directly sue A in this case or it would have to be an arbitrage between insurances?