The insurance company's letter arrived, and the language was clear. They found shared fault. Your percentage is listed somewhere in the fine print, and the implications are spelled out in the kind of neutral corporate language that makes devastating news sound routine. You are wondering what this means for your case and whether there is anything left to fight for.
Insurance companies use partial fault arguments as a strategy to reduce what they pay, not simply to reflect what the evidence shows. Tim D. Wright has spent decades countering exactly this strategy in personal injury cases across North Hollywood, Burbank, Glendale, and throughout Southern California. A partial fault does not close your case. It opens a negotiation over a number, and that number is almost never what the insurer's first letter says it is.
Under California's pure comparative negligence system, every percentage point of fault assigned to you reduces your recovery by that same percentage. An insurer that assigns you 40 percent fault reduces its payout by 40 percent. The financial incentive to inflate your fault percentage is built directly into that math.
Adjusters are trained to identify and document anything that can support a partial fault finding. Did you change lanes recently? Were you driving at the speed limit, or slightly above it? Did you hesitate before braking? All of these observations, even when they do not actually constitute negligence under California law, are recorded and used.
The partial fault determination in the insurer's letter is not a neutral finding. It is a position taken by a company whose financial interest runs directly against yours. Understanding it that way changes how you respond to it.
This does not mean every partial fault finding is wrong. In some cases, the evidence does show shared responsibility. What it means is that the insurer's finding is a starting position in a negotiation, not an objective determination that closes the question.
California courts do not treat an insurer's internal fault determination as binding. If a case goes to litigation, fault is determined by the trier of fact based on the evidence presented at trial. The insurer's letter is a position, not a verdict.
An insurer's fault determination is based on the information they have gathered, which typically means the police report, their insured driver's statement, and whatever documentation was provided early in the process. It does not necessarily include independent witness accounts, traffic camera footage, or physical evidence analysis.
The full evidentiary picture frequently tells a different story than the one reflected in the insurer's initial fault assessment. A witness who saw the other driver run a yellow light. Camera footage that contradicts the other driver's account of the sequence of events. Vehicle damage patterns that are inconsistent with the fault narrative the insurer is pushing.
Tim D. Wright builds the complete evidentiary picture as part of the case assessment. Evidence that challenges the insurer's fault determination is identified, preserved, and presented in a way that gives the argument its strongest possible foundation. That process is often what moves the percentage.
Contesting a partial fault finding is not a single conversation. It is a process of building the factual and legal case for a lower fault assignment across multiple stages: the initial insurance negotiation, mediation if the parties cannot reach an agreement, and litigation if the case requires it.
At each stage, the strength of the argument depends on the quality of the evidence. This is why early action matters. Evidence collected six weeks after an accident is stronger than evidence collected six months after. The counterargument to the insurer's fault determination starts with the same foundation as the case itself.
The percentage matters more than most people realize. The difference between a 20 percent fault finding and a 40 percent fault finding is not just a number. In a significant damages case, it is the difference between outcomes that look entirely different. Tim D. Wright treats fault percentage arguments with the same seriousness as liability arguments, because they are just as consequential.
The firm takes cases on a contingency basis. Tim D. Wright assesses how the fault picture can be challenged as part of the initial evaluation and gives a direct view of where the case stands.
Clients in North Hollywood, Burbank, Glendale, and across Southern California who receive partial fault letters often assume the letter represents the end of the conversation. In Tim D. Wright's experience, it almost always represents the beginning of it.
The practical question is not whether the fault-finding can be challenged in theory. It is what the available evidence shows and how that evidence positions the argument for a lower fault percentage. That assessment starts with a direct conversation about what actually happened.
Under California's pure comparative negligence system, a 50 percent fault finding means your recovery is reduced by 50 percent. You recover the remaining half of your total damages. That calculation applies to all categories of damages: medical expenses, lost income, property damage, and non-economic losses like pain and suffering. The more important question is whether the 50 percent fault finding is accurate or whether the evidence supports a lower percentage. Tim D. Wright assesses fault assignments specifically to identify where the argument for a lower percentage exists.
Phone records can be subpoenaed to show whether a call, text, or data use was active at the time of the accident. Cell tower records and carrier data can establish what the phone was doing at the specific time in question. If the insurer is making this claim, it is either based on the other driver's statement or on an inference from the circumstances. Either way, it is a contestable factual claim, not a settled finding. This is exactly the kind of specific allegation that Tim D. Wright challenges through the evidentiary process.
California's seat belt defense, codified in Vehicle Code Section 27315, limits but does not eliminate recovery for unbelted occupants. Under California law, evidence that a plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt can be introduced to reduce damages, but only for injuries that would have been prevented or reduced by seatbelt use. It does not affect fault for the accident itself, only the damage calculation for injuries specifically linked to the absence of seatbelt use. The practical impact depends on the specific injuries sustained and the medical evidence connecting those injuries to seatbelt non-use.
Six months is not too late to challenge a fault determination, though some evidence that would have been available earlier may no longer be accessible. The two-year statute of limitations for most California personal injury cases means the legal window is still open. The practical concern is the evidence: surveillance footage is almost certainly gone, and witness memories are less sharp. What remains are the police report, available physical evidence, phone records, and potentially vehicle event data. Tim D. Wright assesses what the evidentiary picture looks like at this stage and what can be built from it.
The insurer's fault determination arrived in a letter that sounds official and final. It is neither. It is a starting position designed to reduce what the company pays you.
Tim D. Wright has spent decades building the evidentiary counterargument to exactly this kind of partial fault finding across North Hollywood, Burbank, Glendale, and throughout Southern California. The percentage in that letter can be challenged. The question is what the evidence shows.
The firm takes cases on a contingency basis. Send the letter and describe what happened at timwrightlaw.com/contact or call (323) 379-9995. The assessment of whether the fault finding can be challenged starts with that conversation.
Tim D. Wright has worked through hundreds of partial fault findings across North Hollywood, Burbank, and Southern California. The ones that moved were the ones where the evidence was built deliberately and presented within a clear legal framework.
📍 Burbank Office: 1112 W. Burbank Blvd., Suite 302, Burbank, CA 91506
📍 Van Nuys Office: 16555 Sherman Way, Suite B2, Van Nuys, CA 91406
📞 Phone: (323) 379-9995 (Personal Injury) | (818) 428-1080 (Workers’ Comp)
📧 Email: firm@timwrightlaw.com
🌐 Website: www.timwrightlaw.com
📱 Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter
