I was going straight at an intersection when a car suddenly turned left in front of me, damaging my car. The police came and made out a report saying I was going straight. But the insurance company for the driver making a left turn does not want to pay to fix my car. They claimed “comparative negligence” against me. Can the insurance company do this?
Navigating Right-of-Way, Property Claims, and the New 50% Comparative Negligence Threshold
It is a scenario played out daily on New York roadways: you are driving straight through an intersection with a green light when an oncoming driver suddenly turns left directly across your path. A collision occurs, causing significant property damage and personal injuries. You obtain a police report, which states you were proceeding straight and had the right-of-way, but the opposing driver’s insurance company refuses to pay 100% of your claim. Instead, the adjuster claims you bear “comparative negligence” for failing to avoid the crash.
Can an insurance company legally do this? The short answer is yes. Under New York law, insurance carriers are only obligated to pay claims for which their insured is legally liable. Consequently, adjusters routinely assert affirmative defenses to minimize their payout. However, navigating these defenses requires understanding how New York courts allocate fault between turning and straight-proceeding drivers and how statutory changes affect your recovery.
Right-of-Way Principles Under the New York Vehicle & Traffic Law (VTL)
When assessing fault in a left-turn intersection collision, New York courts look primarily to statutory rules governing right-of-way and driver behavior.
1. The Left-Turning Driver’s Duty: VTL § 1141
Under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141, any driver intending to turn left at an intersection or green traffic signal must yield the right-of-way to oncoming vehicles that are within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Appellate courts in New York have repeatedly held that a failure to yield the right-of-way in violation of NY Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1141 constitutes negligence per se.
Furthermore, VTL § 1163(a) dictates that no person shall turn a vehicle until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, accompanied by a continuous turn signal given for at least 100 feet prior to the turn (VTL § 1163(b)).
2. The Straight-Proceeding Driver’s Duty: VTL § 1111 and the Duty to See
While a driver with a green light has the right to assume that cross traffic and left-turning vehicles will obey traffic signals and yield, that right-of-way is not absolute. Under New York law, every driver has an ongoing duty to keep a proper lookout, to maintain reasonable control of their vehicle, and to “see what there is to be seen” through the proper use of their senses. Weiser v Dalbo, 184 AD2d 1000, 585 NYS2d 124 (3d Dept 1992).
If an oncoming turning vehicle was clearly visible and already executing its turn, a driver proceeding straight may still be assigned a percentage of fault if evidence shows they failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the collision such as failing to brake, speeding through the intersection, or being distracted.
Comparative Negligence in New York: Property Damage vs. Personal Injury Claims
How fault is apportioned and how that apportionment impacts your financial recovery depends on whether you are seeking compensation for property damage or personal injury, as well as when your lawsuit is commenced.
1. Property Damage Claims: Pure Comparative Fault (CPLR § 1411)
For property damage claims (such as fixing your vehicle), New York continues to follow the pure comparative negligence standard codified in CPLR 1411. Under this standard, a plaintiff’s culpable conduct proportionally diminishes their monetary recovery, but it never completely bars recovery unless the plaintiff was 100% at fault.
- 100% Defendant Fault: The insurance carrier pays 100% of your repair costs.
- 80% Defendant / 20% Plaintiff Fault: If an adjuster or jury finds you were 20% at fault (e.g., for failing to brake quickly enough), the carrier only pays 80% of your property damage.
- First-Party Strategy: Because insurance adjusters frequently use comparative negligence arguments to stall or discount property damage claims, personal injury attorneys generally advise clients to process property damage through their own collision endorsement. Your own insurer will pay for repairs (minus your deductible) and pursue the other carrier through inter-company arbitration to recover the funds including your deductible—without forcing you into court alone against defense attorneys. Your insurance company will fight for you against the other vehicle’s insurance company. This is much more of a fair fight.
2. Personal Injury Claims: The New 50% Modified Rule (CPLR § 1411(b))
For personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, New York’s legal landscape changed dramatically. Enacted under Assembly Bill A10008, New York enacted CPLR § 1411(b), replacing pure comparative fault with a modified 50% comparative fault rule specifically for motor vehicle actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026.
Under the revised statute:
- 50% or Less at Fault: If an injured driver is found to be 50% or less at fault, they can still recover non-economic (pain and suffering) and economic damages, reduced in proportion to their percentage of negligence.
- 51% or More at Fault: If the injured driver is determined to bear greater than 50% of the combined fault (e.g., 51% or higher), they are completely barred from recovering any damages from the defendant.
Key Distinction: The new modified 50% bar applies specifically to motor vehicle personal injury claims filed on or after May 26, 2026. Traditional pure comparative fault still governs property-only claims and non-auto personal injury actions (such as slip-and-fall or construction site accidents).
Practical Action Steps Following an Intersection Collision
- Preserve Objective Evidence: Dashcam footage, eyewitness testimony, and intersection surveillance cameras are essential to refute carrier claims that you were speeding or failed to keep a proper lookout.
- Obtain the Police Accident Report (MV-104A): Ensure statements from both drivers are accurately documented, particularly regarding traffic light indications and turn signals.
- Exercise Caution with Adjuster Statements: Statements given to an opposing adjuster can be used to shift partial fault onto you, which may eliminate your personal injury recovery under the post-May 2026 threshold.
- Consult Legal Counsel: Given the strict 50% recovery bar now in place for motor vehicle injury actions, establishing clear liability against the turning driver from day one is critical.
By James Santner, Esq.
If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.