Adjuster says 'no car damage = no injury' — is that even legal??
I'm honestly stunned and need some outside perspective because I feel like I'm being gaslit by this insurance company.
About two months ago someone ran a red light and T-boned me on the driver's side. Their insurance accepted fault pretty quickly, which I thought was a good sign. My car had some cosmetic damage — nothing that totaled it — but I was a mess. Went straight to urgent care that same evening with serious lower back pain and left shoulder tightness. Got imaging done, was put on muscle relaxers, and told to follow up with my doctor.
I've been doing physical therapy twice a week since then and honestly I'm still not right. My shoulder catches when I lift anything above chest height and my back goes into spasms if I sit too long. I work independently — I do freelance AV setup for events — and I've had to turn down four contracts because I physically can't do the heavy lifting the job requires. I've been keeping records of every declined job and what I would have earned.
Here's where it gets wild. The adjuster called me last week and basically said that because my car didn't sustain "significant structural damage," they're skeptical my injuries are "consistent with the accident." That's a direct quote. She also kept pushing me to give her a number before I'm even done treating.
- Is the property damage thing a real legal standard or a scare tactic?
- Should I even be talking to her at this point?
- Do I need an attorney before I finish treatment?
I feel completely out of my depth here.
