[Cwift]

Couple of days ago, I had a CRV reverse into my car that resulted in minimal damages, albeit, there were damages. Here is a video from my dashcam of the hit, thanks to xSupaD for the upload.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQWkaoMAZT4&t=0s

Anyways, I was on my way to class for an exam, and did not have much time to stick around. We pulled over, quickly glanced at our cars for damage, and saw there was not too much damage. Just a notice, it was raining pretty hard that day, so the rain kind of hid the damages initially. We exchanged info, and I snapped one picture of the rear of his car. After finishing my exam, I took a closer look and saw that my hood had some scratches that was not initially found at the site (As shown in the video, and attached below).

I filed the claim to ICBC first, and a day after they called me saying that the other party reported there were no damages, and that we need to bring our cars to a shop for estimations and to see if there's any connection from the accident. They emailed me saying this:
Please be aware if we are unable to relate the other vehicle to your damage, your deductible will be re-instated and you would be offered a hit and run claim.
I have had claims in the past for collisions where we know there was an impact but some of the damages claimed could not have been caused by the striking vehicle. The only explanation could be that there was previous damage that the victim owner, had not noticed prior.


Therefore, they are telling me that I have to pay for my deductible, unless they can connect the damages between the vehicles. I'm just worried because I was in a rush, and did not take many clear pictures of the accident of the site except for one. Do you think I have enough evidence to connect the two? Because as of right now, it just looks like ICBC is just trying to take my 500 dollar deductible even thought I have already sent the dashcam footage.

[ilvtofu]

From that angle wouldn't his spare tire have hit you first?

[fliptuner]

I think you're reading into their email wrong. It says IF they're not able to match up the damage. If they haven't looked at both vehicles yet, how can they determine anything? I say wait til they look at both cars and see what they say, before worrying about it. Show your pictures to the adjuster when he looks at your car and go from there. Ideally, both cars would be inspected at the same time, so they don't just have to rely on measurements.

[Cwift]

From that angle wouldn't his spare tire have hit you first?
Looks like it, but I'm just throwing the crv picture in there cause that's the only one I got and it looks like a connection to the damage.

I think you're reading into their email wrong. It says IF they're not able to match up the damage. If they haven't looked at both vehicles yet, how can they determine anything? I say wait til they look at both cars and see what they say, before worrying about it. Show your pictures to the adjuster when he looks at your car and go from there. Ideally, both cars would be inspected at the same time, so they don't just have to rely on measurements.

They told me and the other party to go to any valet shop to get pictures uploaded on their side, and not meet up at the same time. Ultimately, I just find it ridiculous for ICBC to try and put this under a hit and run and make me pay a deductible where there's a clear fault.

Probably over exaggerating right now, just don't want to be thrown around by ICBC cause of some bs.

[fliptuner]

That's stupid. They should at least have the difference damage looked at by the same adjuster, ideally at the same time. It only makes sense.

[geeknerd]

Looks like that spare tire went on top of your car and the red circle in your picture is irrelevant.

[SupraTTturbo2jz]

i think that'll honestly buff right out. Cheaper to just buy oem touch up paint and buff it up urself. If it were me i'd just leave it. Cars just get scratched the fuck up over the years anyways. Unless its a nicer car i wouldnt give two shits

[tofu1413]

looks like a deep cut polish should clean up the hood well...


(or maybe icbc can cash you out..... and use it to say upgrade to a CF hood :lawl: )

[Bravo]

At the point of impact at 0:13, the back of the CRV raised a bit so it is reasonable to think that part of the car went on your hood. Starting at 0:15, it sure looks like part of the CRV scuffed your hood.

The last pic tho, it looks like a rock chip more than anything; no indentation or scuff marks, not even the dirt/dust on that spot is disturbed.

[ilvtofu]

If the soft spare tire cover/spare tire sidewall hit your car, I doubt there'd be any damage on his car. Same as someone with a trailer hitch ball backing into you at low speed.

[coneZONE]

From looking at the angles from video, it looks like the damage on the tip of your bumper is from the CR-V's right rear corner hitting, and the scratches on the hood and the headlight looks like it's from the zipper on the bottom of the spare tire riding up onto your car. The scratch you circled in red doesn't look related to the incident

[Urrtoast]

http://i.imgur.com/7eELY.gif

[AzNightmare]

For future reference, I think it's a good idea to take videos and close up video shots of the damages as well. It can help add valuable context to the situation while both cars are there at the scene.

I think for time being, you're over reacting. They're basically just stating the policy that they need to be able to pinpoint the damages that are in question so that there isn't any fraud of using old damages.

Good luck.

[BillyBishop]

Do you think I have enough evidence to connect the two?

One way to find out, just let ICBC do their thing.

Because as of right now, it just looks like ICBC is just trying to take my 500 dollar deductible even thought I have already sent the dashcam footage.

Completely understand the feeling having been in the same place too. Somebody in a parking lot reversed into my car when I was inside but parked and not running. No damage to their car but my bumper was damaged and misaligned. Despite the other driver (unlicensed, at that) rejecting my claims of damage, ICBC sided with me. I didn't have video footage, so I think you stand a fair chance. Good luck.

On the other hand, I recall ilvtofu had a sour experience with something similar -- the guy who kicked his ST?


As an aside, and notwithstanding the futility of censoring license plates, I noticed that you blocked yours out but not the other driver's. And you even let the video roll so as to ID him for all to see publicly. Completely understandable for submission to ICBC, but otherwise..?