Yes, they can try it - and this is where the real fight starts

If an insurance adjuster tells a 72-year-old Bellevue driver, "We found you 60% responsible," that is not some weird bluff pulled out of thin air.

In Washington, comparative negligence is real. Pure comparative negligence.

That means if your damages are $100,000 and they pin 60% of the crash on you, the value drops to $40,000.

And with SI joint dysfunction, that haircut can wreck the whole claim.

Because SI joint cases already get doubted.

They're not as clean on imaging as a broken femur. A CT scan may not scream "here's the problem." The pain can radiate into the low back, buttock, hip, or leg. For older adults, insurers love to say it was just degenerative change, arthritis, or "preexisting lumbar issues." If you got rear-ended on I-405 near the Northeast 8th Street exits or in the slowdown where I-90 and I-405 stack up, you'd think fault would be obvious. A lot of times, it isn't treated that way once money gets serious.

Why a rear-end crash turns into a blame game anyway

Most people hear "rear-end collision" and assume the back driver pays.

Often true.

Not automatic.

The insurance company starts looking for a reason to argue your share of fault. In Bellevue cases, that usually sounds like this:

• you "stopped suddenly," changed lanes abruptly, had nonworking brake lights, were distracted, had a prior back condition, refused earlier treatment, or your pain complaints are "out of proportion to low-speed impact"

Some of that is nonsense. Some of it is built from tiny facts twisted hard.

If you were hit in the accordion traffic around the Bellevue Way SE interchange, or on westbound SR 520 heading toward downtown Bellevue, the adjuster may argue everybody was braking and you reacted unreasonably. If there was no independent witness, no dashcam, and the police report was thin, they have room to push.

And here's what most people don't realize: they do not need a judge's ruling to start negotiating as if you're partly at fault. They just assign the percentage and make an offer based on that number.

SI joint injuries are easy for insurers to cheap out on

SI joint dysfunction after a rear-end crash is real. The force can twist the pelvis and lower spine enough to inflame or destabilize the sacroiliac joint.

But it doesn't present like the injuries adjusters wish they had.

You may have an ER visit, then a primary care follow-up, then physical therapy, maybe a pain clinic referral, maybe SI joint injections. That staggered treatment path gives the insurer room to sneer: if it was serious, why didn't this show up clearly on day one?

For a retired person on a fixed income, that delay is often about money, not fraud. Bellevue isn't cheap. Follow-up specialists around Overlake, downtown, and Factoria can mean copays, transportation, and long waits. If you're living on Social Security and retirement income, one recommended injection series can feel financially impossible.

The adjuster doesn't give a damn about that timeline. They use it against you anyway.

The percentage matters more than people think

Say your medical bills and future treatment value the claim at $80,000. Not crazy for a lingering SI joint injury with therapy, imaging, injections, and daily pain.

If they claim you're 50% at fault, now it's $40,000.

If Medicare or another payer covered treatment, repayment issues can eat into that. If you used PIP coverage under your Washington auto policy, that may have kept you afloat early, but it doesn't stop the liability carrier from slashing the claim later. Washington insurers have to offer PIP, and a lot of older drivers have it without really understanding what it will and won't do. It pays certain medical expenses up front. It does not settle the fault fight.

That is why a big comparative negligence hit is so brutal. It doesn't just reduce a number on paper. It can leave you choosing between more treatment and your grocery budget.

What the insurer is probably leaning on

In Bellevue and King County claims, the big liability arguments usually come from a few spots:

First, prior records. If you've ever had low back pain, sciatica, arthritis, or even a mention of hip pain, expect the adjuster to act like the crash did nothing.

Second, low property damage. If the bumper doesn't look terrible, they'll argue your body couldn't be hurt badly. That's lazy, but it's common.

Third, age. At 72, they may quietly assume a jury would chalk a lot of this up to wear and tear. They won't say it that bluntly in writing. They'll absolutely price the claim that way.

Fourth, inconsistent charting. One urgent care note that says "improving," followed by a pain specialist note documenting severe SI tenderness and limited walking, gives them room to call you unreliable.

Bellevue's not some tiny town where everyone knows each other. Claims here get handled by regional teams and formula software, often by people nowhere near King County. They don't care that a retired Boeing spouse in Newport Hills or an older driver coming back from Overlake Hospital isn't gaming the system. They care whether they can justify a reduction.

What actually pushes back on a ridiculous fault split

The strongest evidence usually isn't a dramatic witness.

It's the boring stuff.

The crash scene photos. The location of vehicle damage. The timing of the first complaints. Physical therapy records showing consistent SI joint findings. Notes documenting pain with sitting, standing, transitions, and walking. A treating provider who clearly explains why this is crash-related aggravation, not just aging.

If the adjuster says you were 60% at fault, ask what facts support that exact number. Not the speech. The facts.

Sometimes the answer is embarrassingly thin.

And if the percentage is built on "you had back pain before," that alone does not let them wipe out a new injury or an aggravation of an old condition. Washington law does not give insurers a free pass just because you were not 25 and perfect before the crash.

This is the dirty part of SI joint claims in Bellevue rear-end wrecks: the insurer knows the injury is painful, expensive, and hard to prove cleanly. Add comparative negligence, and they get to turn a real highway injury into a discount item.