<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Any law experts on collision lawsuit? in SmorgasBoard</title>
    <link>http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/SmorgasBoard/Any-law-experts-on-collision-lawsuit/m-p/1675174#M30241</link>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;I have a question regarding a collision lawsuit, specifically a reason cited by the arbitrator. My dad was involved in a collision lawsuit. He was driving straight on green light while plaintiff was driving to the left at the opposing end of the intersection. It ended up as a frontal collision.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My dad was sued (2 months before SOL, not surprising) and went through the arbitration process. Arbitrator decided against my dad with a confusing argument. &lt;strong&gt;Arbitrator cited that if my dad was really paying attention as he claimed, then the collision would not have occurred in the first place. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I'm puzzled because I find this line of reasoning to be circumstantial at best. Is this a valid reason? This is the only reason cited by the arbitrator.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:58:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>trumpet-205</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-11-01T01:58:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Any law experts on collision lawsuit?</title>
      <link>http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/SmorgasBoard/Any-law-experts-on-collision-lawsuit/m-p/1675174#M30241</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I have a question regarding a collision lawsuit, specifically a reason cited by the arbitrator. My dad was involved in a collision lawsuit. He was driving straight on green light while plaintiff was driving to the left at the opposing end of the intersection. It ended up as a frontal collision.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My dad was sued (2 months before SOL, not surprising) and went through the arbitration process. Arbitrator decided against my dad with a confusing argument. &lt;strong&gt;Arbitrator cited that if my dad was really paying attention as he claimed, then the collision would not have occurred in the first place. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;strong&gt;I'm puzzled because I find this line of reasoning to be circumstantial at best. Is this a valid reason? This is the only reason cited by the arbitrator.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:58:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/SmorgasBoard/Any-law-experts-on-collision-lawsuit/m-p/1675174#M30241</guid>
      <dc:creator>trumpet-205</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-11-01T01:58:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Any law experts on collision lawsuit?</title>
      <link>http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/SmorgasBoard/Any-law-experts-on-collision-lawsuit/m-p/1686570#M30299</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I would love to hear from others...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.  Regardless of whether your dad was paying attention or not, he may not have been able to prevent the accident.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;2.  Is there a process if you disagree with the arbitrator?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;3.  What are the guidelines the arbitrator needs to follow?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 22:34:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/SmorgasBoard/Any-law-experts-on-collision-lawsuit/m-p/1686570#M30299</guid>
      <dc:creator>IOBA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-11-06T22:34:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

