Wanarace's - Mazda

These are some pics and a diagram from my brother accident. The accident occured at 11:00 pm, the road conditions were very slippery, due to below freezing temperatures and fresh rain that day. My brother was driving a dark blue 1991 Mazda 626, and was hit by a white 1990 Toyota Corrolla Hatchback.

He was driving east along 87th ave. He was about to pass the car to his left, when the car made a sudden turn accross his path in attempts to make it in the alley.
I was at the police station when the driver of the other car made his statement. He stated that he made a lane change, and was only in the lane for 1 second before making the turn and never saw my brothers car. Also the passenger in the back seat was sitting in the middle obstructing the drivers even more. All of this was written on the police report. The driver made no mention of seeing my brothers car anywhere in the police report.

Now the problem is the insurance company says both parites were to blame. Stating that all though the driver of the Corrolla made an illegal lane change by not beeing in the lane for three seconds before making the trun , my brother was following too close.
Does this make sense to any rational thinking person on earth?
Had my brother been following to close, the car would have been damaged accross the front, not a nice V - Shape only in the middle. Or on the front right corner of the Mazda and the left rear corner of the Corrolla.. The only way to have the isolated damage in the middle of the car, is if my brother struck the Corrolla right in the right rear corner of the Corolla, while it was in the middle of his lane. This could only of happened if the corner of the car was in the middle of my brothers lane, so he had to of made a fast turn to right and never paused in the right hand lane for any period of time. I was at the accident and the Corrolla was only damaged on the right rear corner, unfortunatley I have no pictures of the car, but the insurance company does.

Now the real kicker is that both car were insured by the same insurance company. So they would have to pay for the damages no matter who's fault it was. The only reason to blame my brother in the accident is a cash grab by the insurance company. Both my brother and the other driver are 17 years old.

Just to let you know how insurance works here. Right now I am 19 years old and pay 2400$ a year for insurance. That's with a perfect record, no collison, on my 77 K5 Blazer that's worth 500$ and under my parents insurance as a full time driver. In other words I had to sell my car and truck to my parents for a buck and then registered under my parents. If I was totally seperate by myself my insurance would be 3500$ a year, just because of my age. My insurance will not go down untill I am 25 years old. The problem is insurnace used to be government controlled, but went private. Now there is many companies offering insurance but they all have to offer the same rates according to the government. (Just recently the government approved an other increase, so who know where my insurance is going).

Since both drivers are responsible for this accident both of there insurance preminums are to increase to 300$ a month. My brother already has another accident that was his fault so insurnace is going to climb to 450$ a month. The insurance company knows this, and his insurance is not going to decrease untill he is 25. This is why it is so beneficial for the insurance company to put responsibilty on both parties. If it was just the other guy, they only get alittle money. With both drivers they get alot more.

Now my question is, can I sue them? They are basically stealing money from my brother. I don't want to sue for millions, althought that would be nice, I just want the amount of money he would have to pay extra untill the age of 25, and legal fees.

(All money in Canadian Dollars)