Hacmun & Dhingra provides accident reconstruction analysis for commercial carriers, drivers, and fleet operators facing post-collision insurance disputes, liability exposure, or regulatory consequences. As a practicing reconstructionist, the Principal brings direct technical analysis — not a referral — to the causation question: what happened, in what sequence, at what speed, and who or what contributed to the outcome. That analysis then becomes the foundation for insurance negotiation, premium defense, and regulatory response.
The insurer's adjuster will build a version of events from the police report, the other driver's statement, photographs, and whatever the carrier's driver said at the scene. That version — built quickly, built for the insurer's interest — becomes the default liability position. If the carrier does not produce a competing technical analysis, that default position stands.
Accident reconstruction changes the position of the parties. A technically grounded causation analysis — one that accounts for vehicle speeds, braking distances, road geometry, sight lines, lighting conditions, ELD data, EDR (black box) outputs, and post-impact evidence — routinely produces liability allocations that differ materially from the initial insurer determination. The difference between 100% fault and 40% fault is not a matter of argument. It is a matter of physics, evidence, and how rigorously that evidence is applied.
Carriers operating in Canada face verdicts and settlements where the stakes are high. Nuclear verdicts — commercial vehicle awards exceeding $10 million — are rising in both frequency and magnitude in US courts, and Canadian courts are showing similar trajectory in serious injury cases. The quality of the reconstruction on file at the time of negotiation determines the insurer's settlement calculus.
15 nuclear verdicts in commercial vehicle cases in 2024 alone (ATRI data) — driven by inadequate reconstruction and uncontested liability narratives
Of fatalities in large truck crashes are occupants of the other vehicle — making reconstruction critical for establishing causation and apportioning fault correctly
Each engagement produces a technical report structured for three specific uses: insurance claim negotiation, regulatory proceeding file use, and if necessary, expert witness testimony. The report documents methodology, data sources, calculations, and conclusions — formatted to the standard expected by insurers, adjusters, and legal counsel.
Tire marks, gouge marks, crush damage, debris field, final rest positions, road geometry, sight distances, grade, surface condition, and lighting. Physical evidence establishes the event sequence and speed envelope independently of any witness account.
Event Data Recorders capture speed, braking force, throttle, and steering inputs in the seconds before impact. ELDs record HOS status, location, and speed continuously. Combined, they either corroborate or contradict the witness account — and they do not change their story. 2024 EDR amendments now capture 20 seconds of pre-crash data at 10Hz sampling.
Applying physics — momentum, energy, coefficient of friction, impact geometry — to establish what happened in what order. Was braking initiated before the hazard point? Was the speed consistent with conditions? Was the collision avoidable from the point of hazard perception? These are engineering questions with defensible answers.
Reconstruction findings are mapped to applicable regulatory standards: speed limits, following distance requirements, HOS compliance, equipment condition, cargo securement, and driver conduct obligations. Where the other party contributed to the collision — through their speed, lane position, or failure to yield — that contribution is quantified and documented for use in comparative fault negotiations.
The reconstruction report is formatted for direct use by the carrier's insurance counsel and adjuster — providing a technical basis to challenge the opposing insurer's fault position, negotiate comparative fault allocation, and resist premium surcharge. A carrier entering a claim negotiation with a reconstruction report on file is in a materially different position than one relying solely on the driver's statement and the police report.
In Ontario, preventable collisions are weighted in the CVOR. In Quebec, at-fault collisions affect the RPEVL safety score. A reconstruction demonstrating that the carrier's driver was not the causative factor — or that the collision was not preventable under the applicable standard — creates the evidentiary basis to contest the preventability designation and protect the carrier score.
Insurance adjusters are trained to close files. When a commercial vehicle is involved, the adjuster knows that the carrier has higher coverage limits, that juries are unsympathetic to large trucks, and that settling at a higher liability allocation costs less than litigating. The insurer's reconstruction — if they commission one — will be built for that purpose.
An independent reconstruction performed for the carrier changes the negotiation dynamic in four specific ways:
Physical evidence degrades within days. Skid marks wash away. Debris is cleared. Vehicles are repaired or scrapped. The reconstruction must begin before that evidence is lost. We issue preservation demands and document the scene while the evidence record is still intact. Pairing scene evidence with EDR data — extracted before the vehicle leaves the impound — produces the strongest possible causation foundation.
Speed at impact is the most contested variable in truck collision claims. An unsupported speed allegation from a witness or opposing driver, unchallenged, becomes the operative fact. A reconstruction calculating pre-impact speed from crush depth, momentum, and EDR data produces a defensible, independently verifiable figure that displaces the allegation.
Most truck collisions involve a contributing action by the other vehicle — an improper lane change, a failure to yield, running a signal, or a sudden braking event. Reconstruction identifies and quantifies that contribution. Canadian courts apply comparative fault principles — a third party at 40% fault reduces the carrier's exposure by 40%. That reduction does not happen without documentation.
An insurer negotiating against a police report and a driver statement can ignore both. An insurer negotiating against a technically grounded reconstruction report — with EDR data, calculated speeds, and comparative fault analysis — must address the findings or accept the liability position in the report. The report converts a negotiation over narrative into a negotiation over evidence.
Commercial trucking premiums are heavily influenced by at-fault claim history. A single large at-fault claim can increase premiums by 30–50% across renewal cycles, compounding over years. A reconstruction demonstrating non-preventability — or reduced fault — directly protects the premium record. Where a carrier successfully contests a preventability designation using reconstruction evidence, that designation is removed from the CVOR or RPEVL accident register, protecting both the carrier score and the renewal premium position.
Under the Ontario CVOR framework, a collision is rated as preventable or non-preventable based on whether the carrier's driver could have done anything reasonable to avoid it. This is not the same as fault. A carrier driver can be legally not-at-fault under the Highway Traffic Act and still have the collision recorded as preventable under CVOR standards. Reconstruction analysis identifies the specific avoidance actions available to the driver at the point of hazard perception — and whether those actions were taken, taken too late, or not available. That analysis determines the preventability designation.
Physical evidence on the roadway often degrades or is washed away within 24 to 48 hours. The sooner an analysis can begin, the more physical evidence is preserved.
Yes. It is common to challenge an initial at-fault or 50/50 liability determination with a technical report establishing that the primary causative factor was the other party's speed or maneuver.
Our analysis still calculates the comparative fault of the other involved parties, which can significantly mitigate the final liability allocation and settlement magnitude.
Yes, our Principal is available to provide expert testimony in regulatory settings, tribunal hearings, and litigation.
Service scope: Hacmun & Dhingra provides accident reconstruction analysis, causation sequencing, EDR/ELD data review, and post-collision documentation for insurance negotiation and regulatory file purposes. The Principal is a practicing accident reconstructionist. Reconstruction reports are technical documents supporting insurance claim defense and regulatory proceedings. This service does not constitute legal advice, legal representation, or advocacy before any court or tribunal. Where litigation is active or anticipated, reconstruction analysis is provided in coordination with licensed legal counsel retained by the carrier or driver.