Hit and run caught on dashcam but rental company's insurer is lowballing me — where do I even start?

I went through almost the exact same thing — clear fault, clear evidence, and the other side's claims handler still tried to split liability with me. It felt insane. I ended up getting an attorney involved not because I was injured but because the property damage number was high enough that I didn't want to gamble. Honestly the moment I had representation, the TPA's tone shifted completely. Whether that's coincidence or not I can't say, but it was noticeable.

That "contributing factor" language is a classic stall tactic. They're seeing if you'll flinch. Don't. Document everything — every call, every email, every voicemail. Screenshot that estimate. And do NOT accept any partial payment without understanding whether it closes out your right to pursue the rest. Some TPAs will slip release language into a check endorsement and suddenly you've settled for 40% with no recourse.

I used to work claims and I'll be honest with you: when a TPA is handling rental fleet liability, they have pretty wide discretion to lowball on first contact. They're banking on fatigue. If you have clear dashcam footage showing you were stationary and the other vehicle struck you, their 40% argument has almost no legs. The 'positioning' defense sounds like filler language they paste in when they don't have much else. Push back in writing, cite the footage specifically, and ask them to explain in writing exactly what your vehicle did to 'contribute.' That request alone sometimes shakes things loose.

A couple of things worth knowing: diminished value claims are absolutely legitimate on property-damage-only cases, but they do complicate negotiations because the TPA may kick it to a different department or require a separate appraisal. If your total — repairs plus DV — clears the small claims threshold in your state, you'd be filing in a higher court, which has different procedural requirements. That's not necessarily scary, but it's worth understanding before you decide whether to go it alone. A lot of PI attorneys will do a free consult even for property-damage cases if the numbers are meaningful.

Not legal advice, but generally speaking: property-damage-only cases with solid liability evidence and a clear DV component are cases some PI attorneys will take, especially if the at-fault party has commercial insurance behind them (rental fleets usually do). The consult is almost always free. Worst case you walk out more informed about your options. The fact that your own carrier already declared zero fault on your part is actually a really useful piece of documentation going forward.

No medical angle here obviously, but I just want to say — the stress of dealing with this stuff after a crash is real even when you're not physically hurt. Don't let them grind you down with delays and low offers. Your time and mental energy have value too. Get help if you need it.

Send a formal demand letter. Put the dashcam footage front and center, reference your own insurer's zero-fault finding, and state clearly that you're pursuing 100% liability plus diminished value. Give them a deadline — 14 or 21 days is typical. That letter changes the dynamic from 'person making phone calls' to 'person who is serious.' If they still lowball after that, you'll know exactly what your next step needs to be.

Quick question — did your own insurer put their zero-fault finding in writing anywhere, or was that just communicated verbally when they closed the claim? That distinction matters a lot if you're going to use it as leverage. Also, does your dashcam footage have a timestamp? Just want to make sure you've got everything locked down before you go hard on this.

The fact that you have dashcam footage at all puts you in a way stronger position than most people in hit-and-runs. A lot of folks don't even have a plate number to go on. You've got the plate, the footage, and your carrier already on your side. That's genuinely a solid foundation — don't let the TPA make you feel like this is uncertain. It's not.