By Xabeix - 3/6/2019 08:00 - Canada - Gatineau
Today, I got a rejection letter after I filed a claim regarding potholes on a high speed road that damaged my vehicle. Two of my tires and very expensive Honda mags, worth 1000$ each, are done for. Meanwhile, the city claims they're working hard to fix the roads. It's been 3 weeks, the potholes are still there and the city says they're not at fault. FML
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
By  evilplatypus  |  38

You don’t have to go the max speed the road is posted at. In fact, you’re SUPPOSED to adjust your speed accordingly to driving conditions. If there’s potholes, you slow the hell down to avoid this.

By  RichardPencil  |  27

Your life does indeed suck! The city I live in gladly pays me for all my stupid mistakes. I got a sunburn in a municipal park, and they paid my medical expenses. I tried to drive my booted car and broke it, so the city bought me a new one. So sad for you!

Comments
By  evilplatypus  |  38

You don’t have to go the max speed the road is posted at. In fact, you’re SUPPOSED to adjust your speed accordingly to driving conditions. If there’s potholes, you slow the hell down to avoid this.

Reply
  tounces7  |  26

I guess it's a good thing that all cities place warning signs on the side of the road telling people there are potholes there so they can slow down to avoid hitting them so fast.

Which is like, any speed over 2 mph.

Reply
  alycion  |  38

If the road is as bad as he claims, then he would have seen them. It also sounds like he’s familiar with the road to know they were still there.

By  RichardPencil  |  27

Your life does indeed suck! The city I live in gladly pays me for all my stupid mistakes. I got a sunburn in a municipal park, and they paid my medical expenses. I tried to drive my booted car and broke it, so the city bought me a new one. So sad for you!

Reply
  snowgr5  |  6

Just because someone says they aren't responsible doesn't mean they aren't responsible. You need a lawyer. That's what they are for. They wont just give you money because you tell them to.

By  Xabeix  |  9

Hi, OP here! Just to clarify, I was not going at the max speed limit, and I swerved right to avoid a pothole, but I could not avoid the second one. It's an 80 km/h road and it should have been in a better state since it was all repaved with new asphalt not too long ago. I am mostly frustrated that the city refused my claim because the potholes are still there, in June, this happened at the beginning of May and I called them about 3 times to signal the potholes. So far, they put construction cones around the potholes and a city employee is reviewing my case. I think they definitely could have done better regarding the maintenance and the repairs.

Reply
  krakalacka  |  14

I’m an insurance claims adjuster. The stationary object played no role in your inability to avoid it. I agree with the city, it’s there to be seen and you need to respond accordingly. You succeeded in avoiding the first one, so you knew the road conditions were bad. Your inability to avoid the second one is on you. Try filing a claim with your auto insurance company, wanna know what they will say? They’ll tell you you’re at fault too. Just buy new tires and move on.

Reply
  faifai_fml  |  20

Cheers for the comments. I got out of liability in favor of pip/medpay, and then health insurance claims. Was curious about the p&c, liability perspective on this.

By  Mungolikecandy  |  18

That is what small claims court is for.

By  KittyMack  |  13

It does indeed suck but luckily this happened to someone with money to burn on trinkets like pretty rims. How I learned of the fact that cities are not liable for damage their poor road maintenance causes was when something like this happened to a dirt poor local lady who drove an old beater (y'know, bought for a few hundreds, barely functional but it's all one can afford). She was unable to travel between the locations of home & work by city transit so really needed the car. Commuting via a freeway in dim dawn light she had, iirc, the frame bent or something severe like that, as well as a blown tire, from hitting a manhole that was just left sticking up a couple inches, no asphalt bermed up around it.
I didn't know her- heard of it when it made the news because her life was so fucked up by the incident. Something like lost car leads to lost job leads to lost custody. Tragic.
But you can see why they have the policy. If they DID pay out, thousands of shitheads would be "accidentally" wrecking their cars on potholes, manholes etc until the city coffers we're empty.
Now as for failing to prioritize a pothole repair after the hole caused an incident... That's harder to excuse. They could at least put up some temporary signs lowering the speed in that zone, and warning of the holes, if they really can't get it fixed soon.

By  thehaystackerine  |  19

just because you are stupid enough to pay $1,000 each for wheels doesn't mean they're worth that much.

By  baristalbc  |  18

In the US, it might be different. But here, filing a claim is part of the process. You have to file a claim, and have it rejected, before you can sue in court. For that reason, it’s expected all claims will be rejected. Take them to court.

Again, that’s in the US. Not sure how it is in Canada.