In most states it would simply be considered a "non-fault" accident and fall under the Comprehensive and Collision section of Driver Bs policy. That is assuming that Driver B has sense enough to have Comp and Collision insurance on top of the bare liability insurance. Driver A cannot be held at fault as there was nothing that could have been done to avoid said obstruction.
Comp and Collision Insurance: Simple break down.
Comprehensive Insurance covers fire, theft, flood, vandalism, and a general "act-of-God/Nature" clause. (generally speaking). Many companies, however, do not cover "acts of war". So should you lose your car to a terrorist bombing you're probably screwed.
Collision Insurance covers...collisions. If you hit or anything hits you.
Comp and Collision Insurance generally come with "deductables". Back in the day when people were smart the average deductable was $500. It's quite often $1000 now. The "deductable" is the amount that the insured has to pay on the damages to their vehicle. So if you were to ave $4500 in damage to you car and you carried a $1000 deductable on your Comp and Colliision Insurance you are responsible for the first $1000 in repairs. You Insurer will then cover the other $3500.
Now, bare in mind. If these "drivers" in the hypothetical situation do live in one of the few states here in the U.S. in which the driver of Car a can be held accountable, said driver's Liability Insurance should pay for the damages. The typical Liability Policy is 15/30/5. That means $15,000 maximum bodily injury per person, $30,000 maximum bodily injury per accident, and $5000 maximum property damage will be paid in the insured is "at fault".
Sorry for the long winded answer. Before I got into IT I was a licensed Fire and Casualty Agent in the State of California. :P
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
According to my dad(cop) Car A would most likely be considered liable in such a situation. Due to "speed for conditions" laws, car A would most likely be found at fault.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
In most states it would simply be considered a "non-fault" accident and fall under the Comprehensive and Collision section of Driver Bs policy. That is assuming that Driver B has sense enough to have Comp and Collision insurance on top of the bare liability insurance. Driver A cannot be held at fault as there was nothing that could have been done to avoid said obstruction.
Comp and Collision Insurance: Simple break down.
Comprehensive Insurance covers fire, theft, flood, vandalism, and a general "act-of-God/Nature" clause. (generally speaking). Many companies, however, do not cover "acts of war". So should you lose your car to a terrorist bombing you're probably screwed.
Collision Insurance covers...collisions. If you hit or anything hits you.
Comp and Collision Insurance generally come with "deductables". Back in the day when people were smart the average deductable was $500. It's quite often $1000 now. The "deductable" is the amount that the insured has to pay on the damages to their vehicle. So if you were to ave $4500 in damage to you car and you carried a $1000 deductable on your Comp and Colliision Insurance you are responsible for the first $1000 in repairs. You Insurer will then cover the other $3500.
Now, bare in mind. If these "drivers" in the hypothetical situation do live in one of the few states here in the U.S. in which the driver of Car a can be held accountable, said driver's Liability Insurance should pay for the damages. The typical Liability Policy is 15/30/5. That means $15,000 maximum bodily injury per person, $30,000 maximum bodily injury per accident, and $5000 maximum property damage will be paid in the insured is "at fault".
Sorry for the long winded answer. Before I got into IT I was a licensed Fire and Casualty Agent in the State of California. :P
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.