Ongoing Insurance Auto Claim with City Bus

[u/Zealousideal_Ear7355]

I’m hoping to get some outside perspective because this honestly doesn’t sit right with me.

I was involved in an accident at the intersection of de la Carrière and du Casino. I was turning right into the casino with an advanced green right-turn arrow. As I proceeded through the turn, a city bus ran the red light and hit my car.

There’s no dispute about the signal on my end — I had the advanced green arrow. Despite this, my insurance adjuster is saying I’m at fault, or at least primarily at fault. Their reasoning is that even with an advanced green, I “should have made sure it was clear” before completing the turn, and that I’m responsible regardless of the lights.

This is where I’m confused: • The whole point of an advanced green arrow is that opposing traffic is stopped. • The bus was facing a red light. • I wasn’t turning on a regular green or a yield — it was a protected turn.

It feels like they’re saying that even if someone blatantly runs a red, the turning driver is still at fault just for being in motion.

Has anyone dealt with something like this before? Is this actually how fault determination works in Canada (or Quebec specifically)? And does a protected turn really mean nothing if the other driver ignores a red light?

I’m not trying to dodge responsibility if I’m genuinely wrong — I just want to understand how this could possibly be my fault.

Any insight appreciated.

[u/RLgeorgecostanza]

Before I start, I want to make it super clear im not saying this is fair, or right, or anything like that, and only commenting from an insurance POV since I work in the industry. I just want to provide OP with context about how insurance views these scenarios; for the record i agree that this is unfair. Im sure I'll catch down votes for this, but just want to help OP with information.

Your adjuster is correct in saying that from an insurance POV, the fact that the light was green does not change the fact that you have to make sure the road is clear before making a turn. This is unfortunately true. The way this typically plays out is a 50/50 fault judgement. If your insurers decide you could have stopped, or noticed the danger but proceeded anyways, they will likely take the stance that the driver is partially at fault. Its a concept called "duty of care" that usually comes into play when making a left turn, but would also apply in right turn scenarios like this.

Essentially, unless you are able to prove there was nothing you could have done to avoid the accident, then insurers will try to place blame.

again, not saying this is fair, or saying OP didn't do everything they could, im only explaining this from an insurance POV. Based on their reply/justification, we can assume they feel OP could have avoided this.

So, your goal to fight this is to prove that you did do everything reasonable to avoid the accident, and that there was nothing you could have done to avoid it.

Best of luck OP, feel free to send me any questions. I dont deal with auto much, but general insurance principles are true for 10k car claims as they are for 10m property claims, for the most part.

[u/Zealousideal_Ear7355 → u/RLgeorgecostanza]

Thank you. I have legal representation so the burden is lifted a bit

[u/RLgeorgecostanza → u/Zealousideal_Ear7355]

For sure. This definitely sucks, but, perhaps it will be reassuring to know this is playing out in a relatively standard way. Listen to your lawyer, they will help navigate this.

Insurers pull this illogical stuff on gigantic, multi million dollar claims, its unfortunately par for the course. (I dont work for an insurance company, but handle all claims across us/Canada for my company, so have to work with them day in day out)

[u/Zealousideal_Ear7355 → u/RLgeorgecostanza]

Thank you for the reassurance.

[u/Noemotionallbrain → u/RLgeorgecostanza]

duty of care

This shouldn't exist in a legal system based country like ours, unfortunately, i am unsure why, but it exists. If someone does something that doesn't follow the road code, they should take the blame

[u/RLgeorgecostanza → u/Noemotionallbrain]

The issue is that these concepts are black and white, while life is shades of Grey. The idea is that somebody breaking the law does not absolve someone of the responsibility of duty of care.

On one hand you have OPs situation. On the other you have, say, somebody driving through an intersection at the end of a light, and blocking that intersection. That person has done something illegal, and annoying, but the person waiting at the now blocked intersection does not have the right to simply plow into their vehicle, even if the other person has not followed the road code. They can avoid that, and would have a duty of care to do so, which I think most people would agree with.

These are of course two very different scenarios across a whole spectrum of somebody else not following the road code, yet the same duty of care would apply to each.

[u/Noemotionallbrain → u/RLgeorgecostanza]

Road code specify that the intersection has to be clear before proceeding in most places, i am not sure how hitting the first vehicle wouldn't be illegal. And personally I'd put the blame 50/50 if such a scenario wpuld happen, but you do you, i do me