Traffic Cameras: Auto Insurance Claims Evidence

Traffic cameras are increasingly being used by insurance companies to determine liability in the event of a car accident claim. Placed at various road locations, these cameras capture real-time footage of events leading up to crashes, as well as what happens after, such as in a hit-and-run scenario. This footage provides an unbiased view of the incident, allowing insurance companies to make more informed decisions regarding liability and compensation. While the use of traffic camera footage can be beneficial in insurance claim investigations, there are also concerns about how insurance companies may use the footage to minimise payouts or dispute liability.

Traffic camera footage can be used to determine liability and assign fault

Traffic cameras are often placed at road locations to capture real-time footage of events leading up to crashes. This footage can also show what happened after an accident, such as in a hit-and-run scenario. Camera footage provides an unbiased view of the events, allowing insurance companies to make a more informed decision regarding liability and compensation. In cases where neither driver can recall the details of the accident, or there are no witnesses, traffic camera footage may be the only way to determine liability.

However, it's important to note that not all intersections or streets have traffic cameras, especially in rural areas. In these cases, insurance companies may seek additional sources of footage, such as dashcam recordings or surveillance cameras from nearby businesses or homes.

When using traffic camera footage, insurance companies must disclose that they are using it as evidence. The footage must also be legally obtained and relevant to the accident. Blurry or unclear footage that does not clearly show the actions taking place may not be usable in a claim.

In some states, such as Virginia, a person must be completely without fault to secure compensation in a personal injury claim. In these cases, insurance companies may use traffic camera footage to prove that the claimant was even partially at fault, reducing or eliminating their compensation. On the other hand, traffic camera footage can also help a claim if it shows that the other driver was at fault, providing indisputable evidence of their liability.

Insurance companies may try to use footage to disprove liability and reduce payouts

Insurance companies are often incentivized to minimize the amount they pay out in claims. They will, therefore, use video footage to try to disprove liability and reduce payouts. This is especially true in states with pure comparative negligence laws, such as California, where a victim will receive an amount of compensation reduced by the percentage of their fault for the accident.

In the Digital Age, cameras are almost constantly recording in public places. Businesses install security cameras and closed-circuit television (CCTV) recorders, cities install traffic cameras at intersections, and individuals can use their smartphones to record during an event such as a car accident. After a traffic accident, insurance companies may request access to this footage as part of the claim investigation, often with the goal of reducing or denying payouts.

When a car insurance company receives notice of an accident, it assigns a claims adjuster to review the claim. The adjuster can take many actions to determine who or what caused the car accident, such as asking eyewitnesses to recount what they saw, viewing photographs of the crash scene, obtaining copies of police reports, collecting black box information, and accessing traffic cameras. If the crash happened within the view of a traffic camera, the video footage could serve as important evidence. A video of the wreck could help the insurance company assign fault and reduce or deny payouts.

Insurance companies may be able to use video footage to challenge the validity of someone’s claim. They may go to great lengths to dispute liability and disprove claims. Some may even engage in bad faith insurance practices such as denying valid claims. Many insurance companies try to check traffic cameras for proof that the accident did not happen the way the claimant says it did. If video footage does not refute a victim’s claim, it may at least allow the insurance provider to assert comparative negligence and reduce the payout.

To avoid being taken advantage of by insurance companies, it is important to work with an attorney who understands why insurance companies may want to use video and who knows how to respond to those issues.

In some states, camera tickets are treated like non-moving violations and don't increase insurance rates

In most states, camera speeding tickets do not impact insurance rates. Only Arizona, California, and Oregon treat camera tickets the same as regular moving violations, which can affect insurance premiums. Ten states don't use speeding cameras at all, and nine states, including New York and North Carolina, prohibit insurers from raising rates based on speeding camera tickets.

While camera tickets may not directly affect insurance rates in most states, they can still result in fines and other consequences. It's important to be aware of the laws and regulations in your specific state regarding camera tickets and their potential impact on your driving record and insurance.

Additionally, insurance companies may still request access to traffic camera footage when investigating a claim. This footage can be used to determine fault and assign liability in the event of an accident. However, insurance companies must follow certain rules when using video evidence, such as obtaining the footage legally and disclosing their intention to use it.

Traffic cameras are usually placed in busy intersections to catch red-light runners

Traffic cameras are often placed in busy intersections to catch red-light runners and help keep other drivers safe. These cameras are usually mounted high above the intersection, on street lights or traffic lights, to ensure a clear view of the vehicles passing through. When a car runs a red light, a sensor is triggered, and the camera captures a picture of the license plate, allowing the police to identify the vehicle and issue a ticket.

The presence of traffic cameras can act as a deterrent for red-light runners, as they know they are more likely to be caught and fined. This is particularly important as red-light runners cause a significant number of accidents. In fact, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, red-light runners are responsible for 22% of all traffic accidents in the country.

After a car accident, insurance companies may request access to traffic camera footage as part of their investigation. This footage can help determine liability and assign fault to the appropriate party. It provides an unbiased view of the events leading up to and following the crash, which can be especially useful if drivers are unable to recall what happened or if there are no eyewitnesses.

While traffic camera footage can be valuable evidence, it is important to note that it does not always affect insurance rates. In most states, red-light camera tickets are treated as non-moving violations, similar to parking tickets, and do not result in increased insurance premiums. However, in a few states, such as Arizona, California, and Oregon, these tickets are considered moving violations, which can lead to higher insurance rates.

Overall, traffic cameras play a crucial role in road safety and the resolution of insurance claims, especially in busy intersections where the risk of accidents is higher.

An attorney can help protect your interests if an insurance company tries to use traffic camera footage against you

Traffic cameras are often installed at intersections to catch red-light runners, and insurance companies may request access to these cameras as part of a claim investigation. They can use the footage to challenge the validity of a claim and minimize the amount they have to pay out.

If an insurance company tries to use traffic camera footage against you, an attorney can help protect your interests in several ways:

• They can review the footage and, if it supports your claim, use it to strengthen your case and prove your account of events.
• If the footage hurts your case, an attorney may be able to mitigate the damage and still help you receive at least partial compensation.
• If the footage was obtained illegally, or without disclosure, a lawyer can prevent it from being used as evidence.
• An attorney can guide you on what to say to your insurance company to prevent your words from being twisted and used against you.
• They can help you access footage that could support your claim, such as by drafting persuasive documents to request footage from businesses or government agencies.
• An attorney can also help you respond to other types of insurance company surveillance, such as photos or in-person meetings, to ensure your words and actions are not used against you.
• They can negotiate settlement offers on your behalf.
• An attorney can help you establish the other person's negligence and discuss claims with insurance companies.

In summary, an attorney can help protect your interests if an insurance company tries to use traffic camera footage against you by ensuring that any footage is legally obtained and used fairly, guiding you on what to say, accessing supportive footage, responding to other surveillance tactics, and negotiating on your behalf.

Frequently asked questions