Riders don’t get treated the same as other crash victims. The insurance industry profits from this and has designed their process to take advantage of it. Riders are often left to fight for fair treatment when their claim is initially denied or underpaid. They’re labeled as daredevils, liars, and irresponsible, or worse.
“The rider is automatically at fault”
Many people have somehow come to believe that motorcycles are automatically at fault in accidents. But that’s not true. The determination of liability is made in the exact same way as if two cars collide. It is assessed who did not respect the right-of-way, who was driving over the speed limit, who ignored a red light, who made an unsafe turn.
If a motorist drives over two lanes without verifying any blind spots, then they are responsible for the accident no matter if they hit a car or a motorcycle. The type of vehicle has no effect on determining negligence. However, it may influence how fast an adjuster finds the driver negligent, but that is an issue of bias, not legality.
“If I’m partially at fault, I get nothing”
This fact pattern prevents many motorcyclists from pursuing claims they would have been successful in. The majority of states have shifted from the contributory negligence principle to some version of comparative negligence, but the two can be easily confused. Contributory negligence allows the defendant to potentially bar recovery if the plaintiff was also negligent in any way. In contrast, comparative negligence reduces the plaintiff’s recovery in proportion to their level of fault. If the plaintiff’s fault is less than the set percentage, recovery is not reduced.
“Not wearing a helmet makes me negligent per se”
Insurance adjusters often mention the helmet and equipment used by a rider in order to place some fault on the motorcyclist. Helmet use is not relevant to liability, but an adjuster will likely raise the issue in hopes that it makes you feel that you are at fault for not wearing a helmet, and therefore for your own head injury. If you were not wearing a helmet and as a result suffered injury to your head, face, or neck, the adjuster will claim that your injuries would have been avoided or less severe if you had been wearing a helmet. This is an argument about damages, not fault.
“The insurance company’s first offer is the going rate for my claim”
Initial settlement offers rarely represent the true value of a claim. They are more of a reference point, and for motorcycle suits in particular, such proposals are lower compared to those of a similar car accident case. Riders who want to take a look at this accident law firm can get a sense of how these claims are actually valued when someone familiar with motorcycle cases is involved.
Adjusters also anticipate that riders are not legally represented, are not aware of the calculation method for pain-and-suffering compensation, and are anxious to settle early since they are facing a pile of medical expenses. All these factors add up to settlements that do not fully compensate for the claim, to the point that only medical bills are covered, whereas lost salaries and long-term damages are neglected.
“Since police said no citations, no one is liable”
While a citation can establish fault, the lack of one doesn’t resolve the issue. It’s a related but separate matter. Police officers arrive on the scene of an incident and document their findings. They attempt to ascertain what happened, and why, and to collect evidence in case things are disputed later on. The victim or drivers involved may receive fines or even face criminal charges if negligence or wrongdoing can be proven.
However, they’re not tasked with determining why the negligence or mistake occurred. This is what leads to insurance disputes or personal injury lawsuits after a car accident. A driver can go on with their day without a single citation and still owe thousands to another driver for their mistakes.
Why documentation matters more for riders
Motorcyclists die at a rate roughly 24 times higher than car occupants per mile traveled (IIHS), which contributes to the bias and the extra level of scrutiny that motorcycle claims tend to receive from both insurers and juries. As a result, the underdog myth is a double-edged sword that generally works against riders rather than in their favor. This is all the more reason to ensure you have as much evidence as possible immediately following a crash: photos of the scene, contact information for witnesses, and in a serious case, an accident reconstruction expert who can approximate speed, angle of impact, and sightlines regardless of what either driver reports.
If you are in a situation where fault is being pushed back on the rider, or an adjuster is using one of the above myths to minimize a payout, you should get a second opinion from someone who regularly handles these types of cases. Rules related to comparative fault, statute of limitations deadlines, and uninsured motorist coverage are all different enough from state to state that a general overview could lead you off course.
None of the myths above are all that unreasonable to adopt. Insurers say them, friends and family repeat them, and sometimes the police officer speaking to you at the scene doesn’t go out of their way to clarify the limited scope of their report. But an urban legend is not the law, and the riders who don’t leave anything on the table know how the rules actually work.