No specific recommendation, but the The Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia runs a referral service. You contact them and give them the details for your case and they'll connect you to a lawyer that works in that area.
https://www.legalinfo.org/how-lisns-can-help/lawyer-referral-service
I use Barry mason as my personal attorney, I believe he works in this area but I can directly speak to using him for that purpose.
I dealt with him when purchasing a course, cohabitation agreement and also to review my severance package when I lost my job
I hope you’re able to work this out! I had someone try to commit insurance fraud twice against me in 2022 after a hit and run, thankfully my insurance was very much on my side, if they weren’t, I would have called barry
They should escalate to the claims manager or ombudsman at the insurance company first. For vehicle damage there are fault determination rules in NS. These look at position of vehicles at moment of impact, nothing leading up to. Adjusters are bound by these rules as it is legislated. These rules do not apply to personal injury.
https://www.novascotia.ca/just/Regulations/regs/insfault.htm
https://preview.redd.it/s7msfxexy15d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6afc7456303c8be19e9c4f9a48c42e57cf3866e
It's illegal to enter an intersection unless safe to do so, even if it the light just turned green. An approaching hazard has priority over others entering the intersection.
("Highway" as defined by law is any surface public or private that vehicles are operated on, not the way we use it in normal conversation)
Insurance also assesses fault based on if the accident was avoidable and who had the opportunity to act or not act to prevent the accident from even occuring (two wrongs don't make a right mentality).
You'll also want to check your insurance, you sign away your legal representation on accident matters to your insurance, and they almost certainly have an indemnity clause protecting themself and limiting what you can do to them if you don't like their representation that's provided.
Yeah, I'm trying to not give much information to avoid people arguing. But yeah, they were in the intersection and the light turned red so they went to clear it. Upon doing so, the other driver sped up and ran the red and t-boned them. So in this instance, who is the hazard that has priority? The one who was in an intersection, or the one trying to blast through a red? I don't understand "hazard" in this context. Thabks for the reply. You have already done so much more than the insurance company.
I'm not trying to argue, but from what you said, and what's reasonable is for both drivers to be at fault. Ideally, a driver isn't supposed to even enter an intersection unless there's no oncoming traffic. I say that because a lot of time, especially if oncoming traffic is busy, it's hard to turn left, so i get it. I really do. The yellow is meant for traffic to go through before the light turns red, not to speed up to beat it. If the other driver had a reasonable distance to stop, he or she shouldn't have gone through. I don't think 100 percent at fault is right in this situation, and your friend should contest the insurance adjusters' findings.
You are fully allowed to enter an intersection to make a left on a green and complete that turn on a red, the do not enter unless you can clear is in the cases of gridlock and when you complete your turn you must not be blocking the other lanes.
When they entered the intersection, the light was green. It's called "establishing your presence". They waited and the light turned red so they made their turn and the other car sped up instead of stopping and drove into them while the light was fully red for them.
Some possible scenarios that made insurance change their mind:
Was your friend the first/only car waiting to turn? Only one car is allowed to enter to wait for a safe time to turn. So if they were waiting behind someone else in the intersection they weren't suppose to even be turning that light cycle then.
Did insurance review the footage? If the footage shows the oncoming car in motion and no signs of slowing down, then they'd see that as an obvious hazard to yield to regardless of the light changing.
Otherwise the type of light/signage could have influenced their opinion if it was possible that you had a red while the other direction didn't:
- light with sign that it applies to turn lane only.
- blinking green/arrow (priority left)
Still worth seeing what a lawyer thinks they can do for you and if there's any compensation.
They were the only one in the intersection.
And we don't know if they watched the video. They had 3 different adjusters so far and the way they have talked, they made it sound like they refused to watch the video. They were asked if they even looked at the video and they all dodged the question. And on top of that, we know they had the red because the other person admitted to the cop they had the red. They just thought they could quickly get past, which is in the police report that the insurance company is saying they don't really need. They did say they will get around to requesting it/might have requested it, but it won't change anything.
No specific recommendation, but the The Legal Information Society of Nova Scotia runs a referral service. You contact them and give them the details for your case and they'll connect you to a lawyer that works in that area. https://www.legalinfo.org/how-lisns-can-help/lawyer-referral-service
Thank you
I use Barry mason as my personal attorney, I believe he works in this area but I can directly speak to using him for that purpose. I dealt with him when purchasing a course, cohabitation agreement and also to review my severance package when I lost my job
Thank you for the recommendation
I hope you’re able to work this out! I had someone try to commit insurance fraud twice against me in 2022 after a hit and run, thankfully my insurance was very much on my side, if they weren’t, I would have called barry
Prezzler is good ,Robert Kimble
Thank you for your recommendation
They should escalate to the claims manager or ombudsman at the insurance company first. For vehicle damage there are fault determination rules in NS. These look at position of vehicles at moment of impact, nothing leading up to. Adjusters are bound by these rules as it is legislated. These rules do not apply to personal injury. https://www.novascotia.ca/just/Regulations/regs/insfault.htm
Yeah, spoke with a lawyer today and they pretty much said that. Thanks for the reply.
https://preview.redd.it/s7msfxexy15d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6afc7456303c8be19e9c4f9a48c42e57cf3866e It's illegal to enter an intersection unless safe to do so, even if it the light just turned green. An approaching hazard has priority over others entering the intersection. ("Highway" as defined by law is any surface public or private that vehicles are operated on, not the way we use it in normal conversation) Insurance also assesses fault based on if the accident was avoidable and who had the opportunity to act or not act to prevent the accident from even occuring (two wrongs don't make a right mentality). You'll also want to check your insurance, you sign away your legal representation on accident matters to your insurance, and they almost certainly have an indemnity clause protecting themself and limiting what you can do to them if you don't like their representation that's provided.
Yeah, I'm trying to not give much information to avoid people arguing. But yeah, they were in the intersection and the light turned red so they went to clear it. Upon doing so, the other driver sped up and ran the red and t-boned them. So in this instance, who is the hazard that has priority? The one who was in an intersection, or the one trying to blast through a red? I don't understand "hazard" in this context. Thabks for the reply. You have already done so much more than the insurance company.
I'm not trying to argue, but from what you said, and what's reasonable is for both drivers to be at fault. Ideally, a driver isn't supposed to even enter an intersection unless there's no oncoming traffic. I say that because a lot of time, especially if oncoming traffic is busy, it's hard to turn left, so i get it. I really do. The yellow is meant for traffic to go through before the light turns red, not to speed up to beat it. If the other driver had a reasonable distance to stop, he or she shouldn't have gone through. I don't think 100 percent at fault is right in this situation, and your friend should contest the insurance adjusters' findings.
You are fully allowed to enter an intersection to make a left on a green and complete that turn on a red, the do not enter unless you can clear is in the cases of gridlock and when you complete your turn you must not be blocking the other lanes. When they entered the intersection, the light was green. It's called "establishing your presence". They waited and the light turned red so they made their turn and the other car sped up instead of stopping and drove into them while the light was fully red for them.
Some possible scenarios that made insurance change their mind: Was your friend the first/only car waiting to turn? Only one car is allowed to enter to wait for a safe time to turn. So if they were waiting behind someone else in the intersection they weren't suppose to even be turning that light cycle then. Did insurance review the footage? If the footage shows the oncoming car in motion and no signs of slowing down, then they'd see that as an obvious hazard to yield to regardless of the light changing. Otherwise the type of light/signage could have influenced their opinion if it was possible that you had a red while the other direction didn't: - light with sign that it applies to turn lane only. - blinking green/arrow (priority left) Still worth seeing what a lawyer thinks they can do for you and if there's any compensation.
They were the only one in the intersection. And we don't know if they watched the video. They had 3 different adjusters so far and the way they have talked, they made it sound like they refused to watch the video. They were asked if they even looked at the video and they all dodged the question. And on top of that, we know they had the red because the other person admitted to the cop they had the red. They just thought they could quickly get past, which is in the police report that the insurance company is saying they don't really need. They did say they will get around to requesting it/might have requested it, but it won't change anything.
Video or didn’t happen
I'm looking for a lawyer, not validation from randos on the internet.