[The Reality of a 'No-Fault' Accident] Why am I 15% at fault? A harsh record of being betrayed by my own insurance company (Part 4)
Summary so far ([Prologue] to [Part 2])
A car that ignored a stop sign suddenly accelerated and slammed into the 'rear side (directly behind)' of our family car, which was driving straight on a priority road. It was physically impossible to avoid—a complete 'no-fault' accident. Naturally, I was convinced the negligence ratio would be 0:100.
However, the insurance company that was supposed to be on my side, Sompo Japan, immediately threw in the towel the moment I insisted on zero negligence, saying “We cannot negotiate any further as it would constitute unauthorized practice of law.” The car dealer, who was initially sympathetic, also changed their tune the moment the other party proposed a 15:85 split, pressuring us to settle early (compromise).
When we expressed our anger, the representative from Sompo Japan repeatedly made outrageous claims that defied belief, such as “You should have stopped even if there was a risk of being rear-ended,” and “You should have honked your horn.” Furthermore, they used their in-house lawyers to push for a 30:70 negligence ratio—even worse than what the perpetrator’s side was asking for—effectively shooting their own client in the back.
The lies of the other party, the betrayal of my own side, and the despair of being surrounded by enemies on all sides. However, I have no intention of just crying myself to sleep over this unreasonable coercion. Armed with “the one and only breakthrough,” we decide to launch a major counterattack on our own to break down the fortress of this giant insurance company.
[Part 3] The 'High Court Precedent Shield' I grasped, and the lonely evidence gathering at an intersection where the white lines have faded
1. The 'High Court Precedent Shield' I grasped to prove zero negligence
While thoroughly researching laws and past court cases, my family found an important High Court precedent (Nagoya High Court, March 31, 2010) that shatters this absurdity. The logic behind the High Court's decision is surprisingly simple and clear.
Principle of Trust: Drivers on a priority road are entitled to trust that vehicles on intersecting roads will follow stop signs and yield the right of way.
Denial of Duty to Stare: Drivers are not under an obligation to stare at vehicles on intersecting roads while suspecting that they might suddenly jump out.
Denial of Negligence: If a vehicle pulls out at a timing where a collision cannot be avoided without slamming on the brakes, the driver on the priority road bears no negligence.
This accident is exactly what this High Court precedent covers.
We had already slowed down, and since the other party had slowed down once, it was only natural to trust that they would stop. From there, the other party failed to check for safety, accelerated suddenly, and slammed into the 'rear of the rear wheels' of our car. There is absolutely no room to attribute negligence to a family that wasn't even given the grace period to hit the brakes.
However, the other party's insurance company and Sompo Japan try to force an end to the matter by using outdated, district-court-level thinking—the 'even on a priority road, a 10% negligence deduction is standard' (basic negligence 10:90) mindset—as a shield.
2. The major company's excuse that 'it's not a priority road because the white lines have faded'
The biggest reason Sompo Japan tried to push so much negligence onto us was the environment at the scene.
“The center line (white line) at the intersection is worn and fading. Since it cannot be visually confirmed that the line passes through the intersection, your claim that it is a priority road will not hold up.”
This was Sompo Japan's excuse. Taking advantage of the faint white lines, they ignored the perpetrator's failure to stop and, like the other party's insurance company, attacked their own client by claiming, 'It's not a priority road, therefore you are also at fault.'
I cannot just back down silently after being told that by my own side. My family, unsatisfied and with the help of our friends' wisdom and strength, decided to gather evidence ourselves, the hard way.
We bowed our heads repeatedly to local residents to secure valuable security camera footage of the moment of the accident. Furthermore, we passed through the scene multiple times to create verification videos.
And the decisive factor was a direct investigation at the city office that has jurisdiction over the road.
When I had them check the certified road network map at the city office, it was revealed that the city road my family member was driving on was clearly defined by the administration as a “legally prioritized road”.
When we went back and checked the Google Street View data from the past (2013), a center line clearly cutting straight through the intersection was visible. Even if the current white line has faded due to aging, the administrative road structure and priority relationship have not changed by even a millimeter.
Above all, the other party's road still has a “stop sign” and a “stop line” that are obvious to anyone.
The clincher came on November 12th, regarding the situation at the time of the accident, which we had the other driver confirm directly through Sompo Japan. The other driver confessed their negligence as follows:
“I checked left and right before entering the intersection, but I misjudged (overlooked) it and proceeded forward.”
The fact that it is a “legally prioritized road” certified by the administration
The history of a clear center line remaining in past Street View images
The other party's own confession that they “overlooked it and drove in”
The fact that we were already decelerating for the red light just ahead
Objective evidence that the collision point was “just behind the rear wheel,” making it physically impossible to avoid
We had gathered “perfect material” that left no room for argument.
Normally, the insurance company should have backed down here. However, Sompo Japan's attitude did not change. By the latter half of November, they had completely abandoned any reasonable rebuttal to this objective evidence and repeatedly sent us communications that felt like “demands” intended to make us give up and force a settlement.
A giant insurance company that ignores evidence, refuses dialogue, and simply tries to crush us with the power of their organization.
“That's enough. The stage for discussion is over.”
We decided to execute the “final resort” that they fear the most.
(To be continued in Part 4)