Complaint Review: Mercury Insurance Group - Rancho Cucamonga California

File a small claims action against the driver. The insurance company will have to defend their position in front of a judge, rather than making an arbitrary decision on who was at fault. I've been riding for 30 yrs. and have had a couple of these "Left turn Larry" incidents. Cars turning left in front of motorcycles are the most common car/bike accidents. The car driver that did not yield to oncoming traffic is always at fault (and they invariably say, "I didn't see you"). Go get 'em!

File a small claims action against the driver. The insurance company will have to defend their position in front of a judge, rather than making an arbitrary decision on who was at fault. I've been riding for 30 yrs. and have had a couple of these "Left turn Larry" incidents. Cars turning left in front of motorcycles are the most common car/bike accidents. The car driver that did not yield to oncoming traffic is always at fault (and they invariably say, "I didn't see you"). Go get 'em!

File a small claims action against the driver. The insurance company will have to defend their position in front of a judge, rather than making an arbitrary decision on who was at fault. I've been riding for 30 yrs. and have had a couple of these "Left turn Larry" incidents. Cars turning left in front of motorcycles are the most common car/bike accidents. The car driver that did not yield to oncoming traffic is always at fault (and they invariably say, "I didn't see you"). Go get 'em!

Please check the following sites: (i) http://www.carreview.com/cat/Misc-category/auto-insurance/mercury-group/PRD_14842_1823crx.aspx#review0 Here, hundreds of people share the same story I do - its systemic, not arbitrary. (ii) http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=1678 (iii) http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insurance/articles/?storyId=15694 (iv) http://www.my3cents.com/showReview.cgi?id=16114 Please, these are but a few sites I have considered. All tell the same tale - unflinching denial of liability no matter what the circumstances. Like I said, these people are worse than 9/11, they operate as a legitimate business.

I would like to apologize for some of the spelling errors, typos and misuse of the word suit and suite from my first post. I would also like to apologize to the agent that dealt with my case if I sounded condescending towards her - I understand that she is probably not responsible for the decision regarding my case and there are also limitations to what she can say to a claimant - sorry Belema. At any rate please take a look at the 2009 California Vehicle Code Division 11, Chapter 4, Section 21801, regarding left hand turns: (a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety. (b) A driver having yielded as prescribed in subdivision (a), and having given a signal when and as required by this code, may turn left or complete a U-turn, and the drivers of vehicles approaching the intersection or the entrance to the property or alley from the opposite direction shall yield the right-of-way to the turning vehicle. *By definition, a highway is any public road. Mercury Insurance deliberately stated that I failed to yield to left-hand turn. Can someone please explain this to me? Without a dedicated left-hand turn lane, how can I possibly be held at fault? Mind you I was traveling exactly 25 miles per hour (posted speed limit) when this cab driver (referred to as the "insured" by Mercury Insurance) pulled right in front of me. When using California law as a frame of reference, since it was also raining at the time, the insured failed to perform a safe left-hand turn given the prevailing conditions - he did not see me either, remember. Mercury Insurance also deliberated that since I hit the cab driver's rear quarter panel, the cab driver has already executed a safe left hand turn. Let's think about this: (i) I was in the left most part of the left lane, so shouldn't I have been able to clear him if this was a safe turn? (ii) the cab driver is technically pivoting on a point and can effect a left-hand turn in seconds. This was probably the logic used by the cab driver to execute this unsafe turn; (iii) how can the point of impact possibly determine the outcome of a claim if I am trying to stop my vehicle from hitting the cab - if he is accelerating and I am decelerating, logically I would hit the rear most part of the cab driver's quarter panel. I have a witness that testified to the agent attesting to the liability of the insured, only to be told by the agent that there were conflicting witness statements. If a verdict was rendered on witness statements alone, the agent stated that my witness statement may be just as questionable as the insured's witness statement. According to this sequence of logic, both statements should be dismissed, leaving the California Vehicle Code (see above) as a final form of legal recourse. And lets face it, the cab driver left before me and at no time did I see anyone crazy enough to attest that I was at fault. This has been a very demoralizing experience. As stated above, I found this website by running searches for "Mercury Insurance" and "denied" on google. This is scary stuff people - I can't believe they are doing this to me.