> You choose to drive with only liabilty insurance, and are upset that insurance didn't cover an accident when you had no liability.
Seems clear to me he's upset the other driver's liability insurance isn't covering the accident in a case where law enforcement and others see clear liability for that other driver, and other driver's insurer's reasons seem to more or less amount to "you haven't legally compelled me to pay yet, and probably won't."
> Seems clear to me he's upset the other driver's liability insurance isn't covering the accident in a case where law enforcement and others see clear liability for that other driver,
So? Law enforcement officer's testimony isn't a court judgement. You can't seriously expect anyone to pay you if all you have is some testimony[1] that they owe you money.
Testimony is worthless until it is admitted into evidence in court. Keep that in mind and you expectations will be in line with the harsh realities, and then you won't be confused and disappointed about the outcomes.
[1] Testimony, even from a LEO, isn't a fact. During a matter in court, testimony that concludes that one party is at fault may be disputed by testimony that concludes that the other party (or no one at all) was at fault. In auto accidents it is not unusual for a court to decide that the liability is shared between the parties (50/50, 70/30, etc) - "Sure, the other guy swerved into you, and he really should have checked his blind-spot before performing the lane-change, but should you have really been overtaking in the slow lane? He should have checked his blind-spot, but you should have not accelerated into his blind spot in the first place."
Seems clear to me he's upset the other driver's liability insurance isn't covering the accident in a case where law enforcement and others see clear liability for that other driver, and other driver's insurer's reasons seem to more or less amount to "you haven't legally compelled me to pay yet, and probably won't."