Maryland Injury Insurance Dispute Video Series
The Insurance Company Says I Was Partly at Fault. What Happens Now?
Short answer: Maryland does not ordinarily reduce a negligence claim by the percentage of fault an insurance adjuster assigns to the injured person. Maryland follows contributory negligence. If the defendant proves that the injured person’s own negligence contributed to causing the accident or injury, the defense can bar recovery entirely.
Eric T. Kirk explains what “partly at fault” means in a Maryland car accident claim, how contributory negligence differs from comparative negligence, and how the insurer’s allegation can be tested against the evidence.
What Does “Partly at Fault” Mean in a Maryland Car Accident Claim?
It means the insurance company contends that some act or omission by the injured person helped cause the accident or injury.
The allegation may involve speed, lane position, lookout, right-of-way, reaction time, following distance, traffic-control devices, distraction, or another specific aspect of the injured person’s conduct.
The label itself is not enough. The useful question is:
What exactly does the insurance company say you did wrong, and how did that conduct contribute to the collision?
That distinction matters because involvement in an accident is not the same thing as contributory negligence. The defense depends on negligent conduct that is causally connected to the accident or injury.
Why Does Maryland Treat Partial Fault Differently From Most States?
Most states use some form of comparative negligence or comparative fault. Under those systems, an injured person’s damages may be reduced according to an assigned percentage of responsibility, subject to the particular state’s rules.
Maryland continues to follow contributory negligence. That is an all-or-nothing defense rather than a straightforward percentage reduction.
| Issue | Comparative-Negligence Approach | Maryland Contributory-Negligence Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Partial fault | The claimant’s recovery may be reduced by an assigned percentage, depending on the jurisdiction. | If contributory negligence is established, the negligence claim can be barred. |
| Example | A finding of 20% responsibility may lead to a percentage reduction under that state’s law. | An adjuster’s statement that a claimant was “20% at fault” does not create a Maryland percentage-reduction rule. |
| Central question | How responsibility is allocated under the jurisdiction’s comparative-fault rules. | Whether the injured person’s negligent conduct actually contributed to causing the accident or injury. |
For a broader discussion of the doctrine, see Maryland Contributory Negligence After a Car Accident.
Can an Adjuster Use a Percentage of Fault During Settlement Negotiations?
Yes. An insurance adjuster can use percentages as part of the carrier’s evaluation, negotiation strategy, or assessment of litigation risk.
For example, the adjuster may contend that the injured person bears some responsibility and then offer substantially less than the claimant believes the evidence supports. That settlement position does not change Maryland into a comparative-negligence jurisdiction.
Settlement negotiations involve risk. A party may accept or reject an offer based on the strength of the evidence, the possibility that a defense will succeed, the expected damages, litigation expense, delay, and other case-specific considerations.
The important distinction is between a negotiating position and the legal effect of contributory negligence if the defense is established in litigation.
Who Has the Burden of Proving Contributory Negligence in Litigation?
The defendant bears the burden of proving contributory negligence as an affirmative defense.
During the insurance-claim process, the carrier may investigate the claimant’s conduct and take the position that contributory negligence defeats the claim. If the dispute proceeds into litigation, however, the defense must be supported through the evidence and the litigation process.
That is why an adjuster’s accusation should be separated from the proof underlying it.
Does Any Mistake by the Injured Person Establish Contributory Negligence?
No. The alleged conduct must matter to how the accident or injury occurred.
An insurer cannot establish contributory negligence merely by identifying some unrelated mistake, imperfection, or act of carelessness. The defense requires a causal connection between the plaintiff’s negligent conduct and the injury-producing event.
That is the point emphasized in the video: the inquiry should focus on the specific act alleged and whether the evidence shows that it actually contributed to the collision.
What Evidence Can Test an Insurance Company’s Partial-Fault Allegation?
A partial-fault dispute should move from labels to evidence.
| Evidence | What It May Help Address |
|---|---|
| Vehicle photographs | Points of impact, direction of movement, damage patterns, relative position, and consistency with competing accounts. |
| Scene photographs | Lane configuration, traffic controls, roadway markings, visibility, obstructions, and sight lines. |
| Surveillance or traffic video | Vehicle movement, timing, traffic signals, lane position, speed-related context, and events immediately before impact. |
| Witness statements | What independent observers saw or heard before, during, and immediately after the collision. |
| Police and body-camera material | Early statements, vehicle positions, scene observations, traffic conditions, and contemporaneous evidence. |
| Medical and emergency-response records | Statements or observations made near the time of the collision that may bear on the sequence of events or claimed injuries. |
| Electronic or vehicle data | Where available and appropriate, information concerning movement, braking, speed, or timing. |
Not every case contains every category of evidence. The task is to identify what actually exists and determine whether it supports or contradicts the insurance company’s theory.
How Should a Maryland Partial-Fault Allegation Be Analyzed?
- Identify the exact allegation. Determine precisely what conduct the insurer says was negligent.
- Identify the claimed causal connection. Determine how the insurer says that conduct contributed to causing the accident or injury.
- Separate conclusions from proof. “You were partly at fault” is a conclusion; photographs, video, testimony, physical evidence, and other admissible proof are the underlying evidence.
- Compare the allegation with the objective record. Determine whether the evidence supports the insurer’s factual assumptions.
- Evaluate the litigation risk. Consider whether the evidence supports a viable challenge to the contributory-negligence defense and whether litigation is appropriate.
Insurance Company Says You Were Partly at Fault?
I review Maryland injury claims involving disputed fault, contributory-negligence allegations, and insurance companies that deny or discount claims based on the injured person’s alleged conduct.
A complimentary case analysis can identify the insurer’s theory, the available evidence, potential defenses, and whether the dispute may be appropriate for representation and litigation.
Call Eric T. Kirk: 410-591-2835 Request a Complimentary Case Analysis Read Client Reviews Reduced Attorney Fee ProgramWhat Happens If the Insurance Company Refuses to Change Its Partial-Fault Position?
If investigation and negotiation do not resolve the liability dispute, litigation may provide the procedure for testing the defense.
In an ordinary third-party Maryland automobile case, the lawsuit is generally filed against the driver, vehicle owner, business, or other legally responsible party rather than against the liability insurer merely because the carrier denied the claim.
The insurer may nevertheless remain central to the defense by retaining counsel, investigating the allegations, developing defenses, evaluating settlement, retaining experts where appropriate, and funding a covered settlement or judgment.
Litigation also permits the parties to use discovery, depositions, document requests, testimony, expert evidence where appropriate, motions, settlement discussions, mediation, and ultimately trial to develop and test the factual record.
If disputed factual issues reach trial, the appropriate judge or jury—not the claims adjuster—determines them.
How Does This Video Relate to the Existing “Partly at Fault” Guide?
This video focuses on the core legal distinction between comparative negligence and Maryland contributory negligence, the role of the affirmative defense, the causal connection required between the claimant’s conduct and the accident, and the evidence used to test the allegation.
For the broader written guide—including additional examples of insurer fault theories, evidence preservation, statements, and the development of a disputed-liability claim—see Insurance Company Says I Was Partly at Fault.
Can Last Clear Chance or Assumption of the Risk Affect the Analysis?
Potentially, but they are separate doctrines and should not be collapsed into the contributory-negligence analysis.
Last clear chance is a narrow, sequence-dependent doctrine that may become relevant when the evidence supports a later opportunity to avoid the harm after earlier negligence.
Assumption of the risk is also distinct. It focuses on knowing and voluntary exposure to a known danger rather than simply whether the injured person failed to exercise reasonable care.
Video Transcript: The Insurance Company Says I Was Partly at Fault
The transcript below follows the final published video. Obvious automated-caption spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors have been corrected for readability without changing the substance of the spoken presentation.
0:00
An insurance claims adjuster says, “You were partly at fault for this accident, and therefore you get nothing for your injury claim.”
0:09
An important distinction to keep in mind here is that Maryland is not a comparative negligence state, as most states in America are. Maryland is one of the few states that continues to employ the ancient, archaic doctrine of contributory negligence.
0:29
Many of my clients, particularly those who have not had reason to experience a contributory negligence allegation, automatically assume that if there’s an automobile accident, the relative percentages of fault involved are balanced out and weighed and that the less responsible person would be entitled to recover from the more responsible person.
0:53
That is indeed the law in many jurisdictions. It’s not the law in Maryland.
1:01
This is indeed an important distinction.
1:04
In a comparative negligence state, the less-at-fault person would still be entitled to recover something, with a setoff or a subtraction for their own percentage of fault. That’s not the law in Maryland.
1:21
Contributory negligence either exists or it does not. It either bars the claim 100%, or it doesn’t operate to bar it at all.
1:29
Just because contributory negligence in Maryland is an all-or-nothing proposition does not mean that a savvy claims adjuster will not use it in settlement discussions.
1:44
For example, a claims adjuster could contend, “We believe you caused or contributed to this accident, and we would prevail on that in court. However, in order to avoid that, I’m going to offer you a fraction of what your case is worth.”
2:02
Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense for an insurance company. This means a couple of things, but of note here is that the insurance company has the burden of establishing the factual basis for contributory negligence in a court of law.
2:21
They would need to establish and prove the specific mechanism by which you caused the accident in order to successfully deny your claim.
2:32
The insurance company would need to produce evidence that you were speeding, made an improper lane change, failed to obey a traffic-control device, otherwise violated the rules of the road, or in some fashion contributed to the happening of the accident in whole or in part.
2:57
Because the insurance company has the obligation to plead and prove these factual matters, this is where I begin my challenge of an insurance company’s decision: examining the specific reason for the denial and the specific allegation of negligence.
3:14
In settlement discussions or when adjusting a claim, insurance adjusters are free to argue any facts that they believe would serve to limit or otherwise support a denial of the claim.
3:23
For example, an insurance company adjuster might say, “You were 20% responsible for this accident. Therefore, we’re going to reduce your percentage of recovery by 20%.”
3:40
A subtle legal point when dealing with contributory negligence: the alleged conduct on the part of the injured person that contributed to the accident must actually contribute to the accident.
3:48
It’s insufficient for an insurance company to simply say the injured person was negligent at some time and then an accident happened.
4:03
We then measure those specific factual allegations up against the evidence in the case: the police reports, the witness statements, the surveillance video, if available, photographs, statements of EMTs, doctors, and ambulance personnel.
4:26
Where those factual underpinnings supporting the insurance company’s position are not present, litigation is appropriate. Here, a jury or a judge is asked to determine whether the insurance company’s assertion of contributory negligence is indeed supported by the facts and should indeed bar the claim.
Frequently Asked Questions About Being “Partly at Fault” in a Maryland Car Accident
If the adjuster says I was 20% at fault, does Maryland reduce my recovery by 20%?
No. Maryland does not ordinarily use a comparative-negligence formula that simply subtracts an assigned percentage from the claimant’s damages. If contributory negligence is established, it can instead operate as a complete defense to the negligence claim.
Can an insurance company deny my claim before a court decides contributory negligence?
Yes. A liability insurer can take a claim position and decide that it will not voluntarily pay or settle the claim based on its evaluation of fault. That denial is not the same thing as a judicial determination that contributory negligence has been proven.
Who must prove contributory negligence if the case goes to court?
The defendant bears the burden of proving contributory negligence as an affirmative defense. The defense must be supported by evidence showing negligent conduct by the plaintiff and a legally sufficient causal connection to the injury. An adjuster’s conclusion alone does not satisfy that litigation burden.
Does any mistake I made before the accident count as contributory negligence?
No. The conduct must amount to negligence and must actually contribute to causing the accident or injury. An unrelated mistake or act that played no causal role does not establish the defense merely because it occurred before the collision.
Can settlement negotiations still use percentages even though Maryland follows contributory negligence?
Yes. Parties can discuss percentages when evaluating settlement risk, likelihood of success, and the possibility that a factfinder may accept or reject a defense. Those negotiations do not change Maryland’s contributory-negligence rule into a comparative-fault system.
What evidence can challenge an allegation that I was partly at fault?
Relevant evidence may include photographs, surveillance or traffic video, dash-camera footage, witnesses, roadway evidence, police or body-camera material, vehicle damage, and appropriate electronic data. The useful evidence depends on the specific negligent act the insurer alleges. The goal is to compare the carrier’s theory with the objective record.
Is “partly at fault” the same thing as saying I caused the accident?
The phrases can overlap, but they are not necessarily identical. “Partly at fault” usually means the insurer claims the injured person contributed to causing the collision, while “caused the accident” may suggest primary or complete responsibility. In either situation, the analysis should identify the exact alleged conduct and the evidence supporting it.
Can Maryland’s Last Clear Chance doctrine matter if contributory negligence is alleged?
Sometimes. Last clear chance is a narrow doctrine that depends on the sequence of events and whether the evidence supports a later opportunity to avoid the harm after earlier negligence. It should not be treated as an automatic exception whenever contributory negligence is asserted.
Is assumption of the risk the same defense as contributory negligence?
No. Contributory negligence generally focuses on whether the injured person failed to exercise reasonable care and contributed to the injury. Assumption of the risk focuses on knowing and voluntary exposure to a known danger, although both can operate as complete defenses when established.
Maryland Injury Insurance Dispute Video Series
Current Video: The Insurance Company Says I Was Partly at Fault. What Happens Now?
Discuss a Maryland Partial-Fault Injury Claim
If an insurance company says you caused or contributed to a Maryland collision, I can review the carrier’s theory, the available evidence, the applicable defenses, and whether the matter may be appropriate for representation.
Call Eric T. Kirk: 410-591-2835 Request a Complimentary Case Analysis Read Client Reviews Reduced Attorney Fee ProgramA case analysis does not create an attorney-client relationship. Representation begins only after a matter is accepted and a written agreement is signed. No result, settlement, verdict, or recovery is guaranteed.
