Actually, it does. I've had this very thing happen, and the offender's insurance company wouldn't lift one finger without their client confirming guilt.
There are claims departments that will use this ruse to discourage and confuse claimants, but in this simple case, negligence is 100% obvious, thus a qualified adjuster should be on it quickly.
as long as they paid for the repairs, it counts against me.
It may have counted against you because they deemed you were comparatively negligent by a certain percentage.
In this case the negligence is 100% on the AF driver, no wiggle room here.
Gee, you'd think that if you were in an accident, the procedure would be to call your insurance company and make them sort it out ("activate your insurance"). And if the accident wasn't your fault, your rates shouldn't be affected. Proactive to me means paying the premium so I can enjoy the protection and expertise of the insurance company.
Thank you for your replies. So if I'm to understand euphonium correctly, we file a claim... and we fax all this stuff to the AF driver's insurance company? (photos, police report, etc.). This might take a while, but our immediate concern is needing a car ASAP. We demand a rental from that other insurance company, and they're obligated to give us one even if their driver does nothing? That requires their insurance company to accept 100 percent liability, doesn't it? The company says we need x time to review the claim before they can give us anything, so we say, sorry, we need a rental car by the end of the day, or else...? What's our likelihood of reimbursement if we start the rental process before we win the argument?
Also, is the only at-fault driver the one who hit our vehicle? Seems unfortunate that the driver of the stalled van, who was never hit, will have no involvement whatsoever. As far as insurance is concerned, it only matters that someone else hit our vehicle, which happened because the van in front of us stalled?
Our and others' experience suggests that it's a lot easier to go through your own insurance company... though naturally you pay for it later. My wife has been in touch daily with both our and the hitter's insurance companies. The proactive approach sounds empowering, but we do have two little kids to be dropped off and picked up every day, and two jobs, all in different locations... I understand insurance companies take advantage of the fact that people ultimately won't pick the more difficult route, and that really sucks, but we have different factors to weigh here. Our smashed car sits in the driveway and my wife hasn't been able to go to work. So I'm most interested in the: what happens if we get the damn thing done and fight the liability later?
The van was not the cause of the accident. The AF driver's failure to slow and avoid an accident was. You took the appropriate action; slowed and maneuvered to not cause a collision; the AF driver didn't. Whatever triggered the need to slow is immaterial - it being a stalled van is no different that a child or animal entering the roadway, debris, etc.
Consider this scenario: the car in front of you has no working brake lights. While driving, they slam on the brakes & come to a sudden stop. Not seeing any brake lights you wind up hitting them. You'd be at fault because, as above, you failed to slow to avoid an accident. It's your job as a driver to be aware of the driving conditions. That means monitoring the distance between you and the car in front of you & not just looking for tell-tale signs like brake lights (or turn signals).
It may have counted against you because they deemed you were comparatively negligent by a certain percentage.
Nope. They told me flat out that, although fault had yet to be determined since the case was in litigation, I was being charged with an accident on my record because they had to pay to fix my car. They were very specific about it.
Almost 1 year later, it was finally settled and the AF's insurance paid my insurance company back for the repairs, and they in turn cut me a check for my deductible .... but, in the meantime, I paid for 1 full year of DOUBLE my usual premiums ... and, no, the insurance company would not give me a refund for the extra premiums, no matter how much I pleaded and threatened.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Don't know your residence, but I'd sure shop for a different insurance company. Contact the insurance commissioner with a copy of letter to your company regarding their not granting a refund for the unearned extra premiums. Insurance companies grant refunds to their commercial vehicle insureds all the time. You are due the refund & it is obtainable. :mad:
"When the AF driver fails to communicate with his company, that does NOT prevent you from making the claim. His lack of cooperation does not control your progess to indemnification. Ignore him for now and advise the adjuster you expect your car to be repaired and they are to provide a rental vehicle until the repair is completed."
Yes, you can file and open a claim with his insurance company, but they have a duty to check with their insured (the guy who hit you in the rear) and get his side of the story, no matter how obvious it is whose fault it is...sometime, the at-fault driver does not respond to their phone calls, so the claim is stalled until they get in contact with him...another reason why I tell folks to carry rental car insurance so they can get a rental car if they need THEIR insurance to fix the damages (less your deductible) and get a rental car while the at-fault insurance LEGALLY stalls processing the claim until they complete their investigation, and talking to their insured is part of that investigation...
And the van driver has NO fault or portion in this wreck...in GA, when you rear-end someone, the charge is "following too closely"...the only guy at fault is the one who rear-ended you...his insurance is responsible for fixing your car and any damages to the van if you ran into the rear of him...which brings me to another item I recommend that folks carry, and that is Uninsured (Underinsured) Motorists insurance...
If his liability policy only has, say, 25K in vehicle damage coverage, and your car is a MB S500 and so is the car in front of you, the damages could exceed the amount of his insurance...the UM policy will kick in and give you extra coverage, if you have amounts over his coverage, and you also can use your collision coverage for the same thing...
U/M gives you coverage for pain and suffering in the event he is uninsured...in GA, we have sufficient illegals that the possibility of an uninsured motorist is quite high...
You are getting opinions all over the board here, but one thing is for certain ... the best and most efficient way to resolve this is to utilize your own coverage if it exists. Additionally, as the days tick by you have a duty to mitigate your damages. Go through your carrier if you have full coverage and suck up the potential rate increase as well as the deductible ... you will come out better in the long run.
The other party failing to communicate with his carrier does not prevent you from making a claim; however, his carrier VERY MUCH could deny coverage for his failure to cooperate. Despite the clarity of liability, coverage may not be in order and they may require his statement to resolve any coverage issues. His carrier has very little obligation to you ... you are not really any concern of theirs. They care about two things, duty to indemnify and duty to defend. If they cannot clear up coverage you are not even in their world.
I'm not familliar with GA; however, I very much believe that liability could be assessed to the van, depending on why that van was stalled in the road, how long that van had been stalled in the road, what steps the driver took to warn other traffic, etc.... Essentially, it's a question of fact. Liability is never clear, it's never decided by the policy, it's rarely decided by the law, it's only informally agreed upon by carriers and attorneys ... and a jury (the only ones that solidly assess liability) knows less about negligence than any of the above parties.
Call your carrier, get them moving on your vehicle. Call Geico, see if they will front your deductible once they accept liablity and clear coverage. Otherwise you can file suit, that will force Geico's hand to either deny for non-coop or defend ... and really really catch them off guard.
Marsha ... I no longer believe you are a PA. I can't imagine any situation like this where an attorney wouldn't pursue the back car for 100% of injuries, settle and release and then go after the van for 100% of injuries (or if no information on the van, their own carrier for UM at 100%). Someone must have dropped an ethics bomb in GA that missed the rest of the country.
Physician's Assistant....you know, for those of you who use cinder blocks under your car while you change your oil? A P.A. with an automotive background would know how to get the car off you, obviously. :P
"I no longer believe you are a PA" It, unfortunately, does not have the power to change reality at this point. Not anymore at least. You, I imagine, are still a plantiff's attorney.
However, I believe the discussion was on the table whether a van stopped in the interstate contributed negligence to a rear-end accident behind it. You indicated no ... which 1. Is far too black and white for any attorney I know, 2. Seems like a concession of any claim under against that van driver/company/carrier, and 3. oh I don't remember the circusmtance too well, but I recall some issue with a UM/UIM ... but it would be a concession of any UM under your own policy against that van driver as well.
Too many concessions that are based in logic and ethics ... it just doesn't add up.
It's not about distributing fault. It's about obtaining a release from the rear-ending party ... which would cite no admission of guilt, but a dollar figure to secure the release. At that point, still no court decision ... rear-ending party is protected and now pursuit begins of all other potentially liable parties, i.e., van driver/owner/business. Their potential knowledge of settlement of rear vehicle may bolster their negotiations, but fact remains that they would rather protect their insured and extinguish exposure through settlement than court where their risk remains and their defense costs soar.
File suit and invite everyone to the game at once and you lose this opportunity to pick off every potentially liable party one-by-one.
No shock that insurance costs continue to rise (along with profit). Redistribution of wealth that really only affects the average insured.
but here in GA, if your vehicle is stopped in the road, say, due to traffic ahead of you, and someone rear ends that stopped vehicle, the stopped vehicle carries no liability whatsoever...the charge to the driver who rear ended the stopped vehicle is "following too closely" as you have a duty to be aware of driving consition in front of you...
Now if somebody cut you off and you struck them in the rear because they cut you off and just missed clipping your bumper, that would be a different story...
But with all the traffic jams we have here, traffic often comes to a stop, one second driving 65 and the next coming to a stop...if you rearend the guy in front of you then YOU are at fault...
Heck no, a contributory negligence state, as I understand it, means that is the "victim" is even 1% at fault, they cannot recover from the other driver...contributory would be the WORST possible of all the types of law...
GA is a hybrid-comparative negligence state...true comparative would mean that each driver is assigned their percentage of fault, totalling up to 100% (obviously)...In GA, the injured party (victim) must be less than 50% at fault or they cannot recover from the other party...
Example for all of you: in a comparative state, if one is 40% at fault, any monetary award would be reduced by 40%, your percentage of fault...in GA, it is rarely reduced, but you cannot pursue the other driver unless the other driver is OVER 50% at fault...your percentage of fault must be less than 50% or you cannot recover from the other driver...
Well, complicated by the fact that this is arguably a three vehicle accident and the middle vehicle is negligent free.
All of the logic presented here makes perfect sense ... but none of it would prevent suit being filed and heard ... and likely victorious on behalf of the plaintiff based on the average jury these days.
Remember, anyone can file suit against anyone for anything, so even the at-fault party can file suit against the innocent party in an attempt to recover... :confuse: :confuse:
I posted this on another Edmunds forum, but was advised to post here instead...
In October of 2010, I brought my car into my dealer for service...it was a lease up in 4 months, and as I was waiting I started looking at the cars in the showroom and talking to a salesperson...they suggested taking a brand new model, driving it for a week (including a free tank of gas!), and seeing what I thought...sure, I thought, no harm here. I gave them my insurance information, and I assumed liability.
Next morning on way to school,I get t-boned and the car is totaled...fortunately neither my daughter or I was hurt. Dealer had car towed back to dealership, and my wife picked me up.
The dealership was paid by my insurance (less my deductible)...however, they were paid more than the sticker and also full tax...my guess is it was around 4K more than I was going to pay, plus about 9% tax. They called me to pay my deductible, I told them they had been paid more than enough, and I never heard from them again.
Of course, my insurance went up 60%...yuk.
I realize it's been nearly two years, but I don't think there is some statute of limitations...and if there is, I'd imagine I'm within the time frame, but I have a couple questions:
Can I ask the dealer to split any "profits", and are they obligated to in any way? I'm not looking to profit, but it would be nice to at least get the difference in my insurance premium. Also, do dealers have to pay the sales tax to the state (CA) in this instance...how does that work? Do they take ownership of the wreck?
Thanks...it's been bugging me for a while now, and I figure I might as well do something before it's too late, if it already isn't.
Oh this is a dandy case for a lawsuit----very interesting. If someone "lends" you a car, I would think that the wreck is totally on their dime, unless their insurance subrogates the claim with the insurance company of the party at fault. If you were at fault, then perhaps that's what happened. The dealer's insurance paid him off then got the $$$ from your insurance company. If you were not at fault, then maybe it gets all the more complicated. Of course I don't know what you "signed" when you took the car, so maybe this is all hot air at this point.
That your renewal increased 60% indicates the crash was your fault. What the amount the dealer recovered from your company is none of your business. Had they collected less than the value of the destroyed, the dealer could come after you. That the dealer collected more than what you think they should have, doesn't excuse you from paying your deductible. Remembering you were the cause of the crash.
Most insurance contracts have language that will extend coverage to a rented or borrowed vehicle if it is temporarily replacing your covered vehicle. My auto policy reads as follows-
Under the heading of 'Other Automobiles Covered'- "Your coverage also applies to certain other automobiles. It applies to an automobile you do not own which is a temporary substitute for your automobile. Your automobile must be out of use because of breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction."
Technically, if a dealership allowed me an extended test drive (be it hours or days) but my car wasn't out of service, my insurance might not cover it. The key factor is that my car is "out of service" and the loaner/rental is a temporary replacement.
Earlier this year, I was car shopping and the Volvo dealer let me take a car for the weekend. I called my insurance company to let them know and they just asked for the make/model and how long I would be driving it. But there is no guarantee that they would have covered it if I hadn't called in advance and ended up having an accident!
In reality, most people wouldn't even think to call the insurance company in a that kind of situation. But I'm an Insurance Agent, so my first thought in any situation is "am I covered?"!!!
As to whether the OP has any claim on any perceived 'surplus' payment to the dealer, the answer is NO. Your negligence resulted in the destruction of the dealer's asset (car). The settlement between your insurer and the dealer probably consisted of more than just the price of the car. It is likely that they were compensated for "loss of use" or something similar as well as payment for their time and effort dealing with the claim.
But the main factor is that you didn't suffer any sort of financial loss, therefore you are NOT entitled to any compensation from your insurer.'
As for the 60% increase in premium, that's quite steep! If this is the only accident you've had in the past three years and you have no violations for at least three years, you should consider shopping for new coverage!
yeah that's the part that was tricky for me---the dealer basically SOLICITED the driver to take the car--it wasn't a substitute for a vehicle being repaired. This is why I thought the wreck might be on the dealer's dime.
1. There really was no "loss" for the dealer...this was a brand new car they were going to sell me...basically they got full sticker and then more because I totalled the car! Yes, they had to tow the car back to the dealer (5 miles away)...that couldn't cost them more than a couple hundred at most, if not zero. I saw the settlement...it was based on sticker...somehow, the dealership convinced the insurance company that my car was worth 4K more than sticker!
2. My premium increase was steep, but at least it's only for a year! And I was paying very little. Also, since it was my fault (70/30), the other driver (20 year old Honda) not only got full replacement but 50K in personal injury...there was no ambulance, fyi...just soft tissue damage is my guess.
3. My feeling about this is that if I'm on the hook if the dealer gets underpaid, shouldn't I share in the profits if they are overpaid? That would seem fair, but then again, life isn't fair, is it?
4. The deductible was to be paid directly to the dealer...however, when I said they had been paid more than enough, they dropped the issue. This, to me at least, is a sign that they were overpaid and they know it.
I know I should just forget about it, but I just want to exhaust my options beforehand.
I'm not a fan of this mindset to be honest, because I think that no-one involved gets the idea of indemnity; however, you have some pretty valid concerns.
The dealership was not owed sticker price in my opinion. Replacement cost of that vehicle... that they had not sold yet ... is essentially dealer cost ... what it will cost the dealer to replace that vehicle. Sticker is the same as if they had "sold" the vehicle and includes profit for them which they had not earned at the time of loss ... additionally, I'm skeptical that they pay sales tax on the vehicle that they have not sold ... so I believe they pocketed the 4k sales tax as well.
Yep, everyone ripped off the carrier ... guess what, your carrier still makes money. They take it out of the average guy ... shocker.
And 50k to settle soft tissue?? Blame that on juries.
The carrier should have only paid "dealer cost" is correct. Because of the settlement, there is more to this than we have been told. Agree with your post 100%
From the pieces of information presented here, I woud say that:
1. "Insurance fraud" is the "business model" every time when insurance is involved (especially in health care), so no surprise here. 2. Be ready to be sued for bodily harm. That is what my brother is going through: he slightly rear-ended someone in a traffic jam at 5 mph or so 2 years ago; now, after 2 years, out of the blue, he is sued (it looks like another party had a pre-existing spine problem, and tries to milk a situation). 3. What you'd like to do is also "milking the situation". Yes, it hurts to see that someone profited at the expense of your insurance, and urges to try to share in the loot. 4. If you ask what is fair, sorry. I feel that if someone is at fault in an accident, it is fair for him to pay deductible, to have his premium raised, to pay fine for a moving violation, and to have his license suspended for maybe from 6 months to 2 years. 5. That said, I believe that most insurers nowaday advertise their "accident forgiveness" for the first accident in 5 years or so; so, you might be able to get a better treatment.
4. If you ask what is fair, sorry. I feel that if someone is at fault in an accident, it is fair for him to pay deductible, to have his premium raised, to pay fine for a moving violation, and to have his license suspended for maybe from 6 months to 2 years
I disagree. Isn't that a bit harsh? I may be at fault because I had a tire blow out or some other unforeseen mechanical problem.
This would simply result in a greater number of people driving with a suspended license. Not everyone lives in a major metro area - in fact, most people don't. How would they get to work?
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
I may be at fault because I had a tire blow out or some other unforeseen mechanical problem.
This would simply result in a greater number of people driving with a suspended license. Not everyone lives in a major metro area - in fact, most people don't. How would they get to work?
Here we enter the area of hypothetical, because the actual law is either different or not enforced. But it is still a useful exercise, to try to construct a better world in our mind. Also, I recollect how the things worked out in the past, when I learned driving, when (and where) common sense and personal responsibility were more in fashion.
If the accident was caused by an unforeseeable and unsurmountable (because of the laws of physics) force, you are not at fault. Accidents happen. If the problem was caused by the poor maintenance, you are at fault and have to cope with consequences. It is better to have more people not driving than driving badly and putting others in danger. We have the right to be reasonably safe at the public streets. You are not going to allow just everybody to wield a firearm, for example. Driving is a privilege. Not living close to public transportation? Too bad. I remember (well, not in this country) when only one in 10 or 20 people had a car, and public transportation was tough, often even worse than we have now. 20-30-min walk to the bus stop or subway was pretty common. Children walked to their schools, rain, shine, or snow. And nobody died because of that.
I think people's memories block out the reality. Lousy cars, lousy drivers and lousy roads abounded in the 50s and 60s. Meanwhile fatality rates are the lowest they've ever been.
Can anybody comment on this topic: How are we protected in case of minor fender-benders? Once (6 or 7 years ago) I was hit by another driver who changed lanes and didn't see me. He immediately accepted that he was at fault, we exchanged our insurance information, all like in nice kind Christmas stories. Then, real life kicked in. His insurance company refused to pay saying that he changed his story and now says that I changed lanes and hit him. My insurance company made me pay a deductible ($500), paid a meager difference (less than $200) and refused to collect from his company because there was no hard proof who was at fault. There cannot be any police report, because in PA police does not come if there is no bodily harm, as a matter of policy.
I am not sure if he really changed the story or was forced to do it by his insurance company. I suspect of that because most companies explicitly forbid their customers to discuss any responsibility with anybody (except with the police and the company). Actually, it doesn't even matter: another driver could as well just to say me that he is not at fault, there is no proof, no police report, bye-bye! The only practical advice I had so far was from my (late) insurance agent: that next time I have to fake an injury. I still miss my $500!
Meanwhile fatality rates are the lowest they've ever been.
This "fatalities" argument is invoked every time in many threads to justify bad driving, "inconsiderate" drivers, and even texting while driving. I for one is not thrilled to be just said "calm down, you are still less likely to die". With modern cars, full of safety features and basically taking away from us most of what driving used to be, it is a shame we ever have ANY fatalities. "Lowest rates" doesn't mean everything is alright. First, recently fatalities spiked. We don't know yet if it is a trend. Second, I would submit that these low numbers are because we still have quite many older male drivers on the road, who are mostly not addicted to electronic gizmos and socializing, and maybe learned some driving at some point. When we are gone, things may change. Low fatality numbers are at our expense: non-distracted drivers have to watch out for others and correct their errors. So far we manage, more or less. But when we become overwhelmed ... And no, I am pretty sure the drivers on average are lousier now.
By the way, I am not really happy to have a non-fatal accident either, even just a fender-bender, by no fault of mine.
I'm turning 60 in a couple of months and I love my mp3. It even has a remote control that I use since it doesn't interface with my steering wheel controls. :shades:
Back to insurance, if I do have another at-fault wreck, it seems to me that switching insurance companies at the next renewal would be the thing to do (unless I happen to get amazing service from the current carrier or they have a forgiveness clause).
My thinking is that I pay premiums to get coverage. After a wreck, I assume I'll be a higher risk and any premium anywhere would be higher, but why "reward" my current carrier for doing what I paid them to do and then have them raise my rates?
I like it too. But I have to admit that since even the basic tune info (singer, title) and music file navigation (folder browsing) became available, it became more of a distraction than I would be comfortable with.
then have them raise my rates? Previous to your being at fault, you fooled the company into believing you deserved "Preferred" rates. Now that they know what your driving ability really is, you are regarded accordingly with their Standard rate. And that is as it should be.
Having grown up with a neighbor that has been a life-long insurance actuary (several math degrees), and me being 58 now, she has told me stories that I found hard to believe, but to answer your question, according to her it wouldn't be any surprise to see actuarial tables on "bees, birds, skunks, etc." causing driving distractions/accidents.
The availability of computerized models at low costs help make a myriad of actuarial charts easier to compile and update.
The American public has become completely desensitized to the carnage occurring on public roads. If, for instance, instead of 40,000 dead Americans from highway fatalities, we demanded sacrifice of 40,000 Americans a year to the god Kali, there would be national outrage. But we seem content to give up a football stadium full of people every year as just part of life's risk,a risk that most of us are willing to take.
A friend of mine who drives a Ford F150 P.U., recently had his driver side rear view mirror taken off by a city bus. A weird accident, and no other damage was done. I was astounded that the repair estimate was over $1800.
Not really a fair comparison. Most Americans would be outraged at sacrifice to the god Kali because they would not perceive any benefit. Plus, that would be a guaranteed death of 40,000 Americans, without regard to whether they had any input into their demise.
Most Americans DO see a benefit to the risk of driving. I'm less concerned about dying in an auto accident than I am wasting precious hours of my life trying to get from point A to point B. Sure, I could walk to the grocery, at a cost of 1 hour of my life every day (every day, because there's only so much I can carry). I could walk to the nearest bus station, 20 miles away, when I want to visit my parents, and then walk another 5 miles to their house. But why?
Plus, there are plenty of traffic deaths that are avoidable or caused by the person who meets their demise - alcohol, distraction/inattention, inadequate safety features in vehicle or failure to use features (seatbelts, headlights), driving in known dangerous conditions (icy roads)... there are choice that affect your likelihood of survival.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Comments
There are claims departments that will use this ruse to discourage and confuse claimants, but in this simple case, negligence is 100% obvious, thus a qualified adjuster should be on it quickly.
as long as they paid for the repairs, it counts against me.
It may have counted against you because they deemed you were comparatively negligent by a certain percentage.
In this case the negligence is 100% on the AF driver, no wiggle room here.
Dream world (and an expensive one at that).
Also, is the only at-fault driver the one who hit our vehicle? Seems unfortunate that the driver of the stalled van, who was never hit, will have no involvement whatsoever. As far as insurance is concerned, it only matters that someone else hit our vehicle, which happened because the van in front of us stalled?
Our and others' experience suggests that it's a lot easier to go through your own insurance company... though naturally you pay for it later. My wife has been in touch daily with both our and the hitter's insurance companies. The proactive approach sounds empowering, but we do have two little kids to be dropped off and picked up every day, and two jobs, all in different locations... I understand insurance companies take advantage of the fact that people ultimately won't pick the more difficult route, and that really sucks, but we have different factors to weigh here. Our smashed car sits in the driveway and my wife hasn't been able to go to work. So I'm most interested in the: what happens if we get the damn thing done and fight the liability later?
Consider this scenario: the car in front of you has no working brake lights. While driving, they slam on the brakes & come to a sudden stop. Not seeing any brake lights you wind up hitting them. You'd be at fault because, as above, you failed to slow to avoid an accident. It's your job as a driver to be aware of the driving conditions. That means monitoring the distance between you and the car in front of you & not just looking for tell-tale signs like brake lights (or turn signals).
Nope. They told me flat out that, although fault had yet to be determined since the case was in litigation, I was being charged with an accident on my record because they had to pay to fix my car. They were very specific about it.
Almost 1 year later, it was finally settled and the AF's insurance paid my insurance company back for the repairs, and they in turn cut me a check for my deductible .... but, in the meantime, I paid for 1 full year of DOUBLE my usual premiums ... and, no, the insurance company would not give me a refund for the extra premiums, no matter how much I pleaded and threatened.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Yes, you can file and open a claim with his insurance company, but they have a duty to check with their insured (the guy who hit you in the rear) and get his side of the story, no matter how obvious it is whose fault it is...sometime, the at-fault driver does not respond to their phone calls, so the claim is stalled until they get in contact with him...another reason why I tell folks to carry rental car insurance so they can get a rental car if they need THEIR insurance to fix the damages (less your deductible) and get a rental car while the at-fault insurance LEGALLY stalls processing the claim until they complete their investigation, and talking to their insured is part of that investigation...
And the van driver has NO fault or portion in this wreck...in GA, when you rear-end someone, the charge is "following too closely"...the only guy at fault is the one who rear-ended you...his insurance is responsible for fixing your car and any damages to the van if you ran into the rear of him...which brings me to another item I recommend that folks carry, and that is Uninsured (Underinsured) Motorists insurance...
If his liability policy only has, say, 25K in vehicle damage coverage, and your car is a MB S500 and so is the car in front of you, the damages could exceed the amount of his insurance...the UM policy will kick in and give you extra coverage, if you have amounts over his coverage, and you also can use your collision coverage for the same thing...
U/M gives you coverage for pain and suffering in the event he is uninsured...in GA, we have sufficient illegals that the possibility of an uninsured motorist is quite high...
The other party failing to communicate with his carrier does not prevent you from making a claim; however, his carrier VERY MUCH could deny coverage for his failure to cooperate. Despite the clarity of liability, coverage may not be in order and they may require his statement to resolve any coverage issues. His carrier has very little obligation to you ... you are not really any concern of theirs. They care about two things, duty to indemnify and duty to defend. If they cannot clear up coverage you are not even in their world.
I'm not familliar with GA; however, I very much believe that liability could be assessed to the van, depending on why that van was stalled in the road, how long that van had been stalled in the road, what steps the driver took to warn other traffic, etc.... Essentially, it's a question of fact. Liability is never clear, it's never decided by the policy, it's rarely decided by the law, it's only informally agreed upon by carriers and attorneys ... and a jury (the only ones that solidly assess liability) knows less about negligence than any of the above parties.
Call your carrier, get them moving on your vehicle. Call Geico, see if they will front your deductible once they accept liablity and clear coverage. Otherwise you can file suit, that will force Geico's hand to either deny for non-coop or defend ... and really really catch them off guard.
Marsha ... I no longer believe you are a PA. I can't imagine any situation like this where an attorney wouldn't pursue the back car for 100% of injuries, settle and release and then go after the van for 100% of injuries (or if no information on the van, their own carrier for UM at 100%). Someone must have dropped an ethics bomb in GA that missed the rest of the country.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I appreciate the setup but I'm not spiking it....
Pugnacious Ambulance Chaser??
I keed, I keed.
However, I believe the discussion was on the table whether a van stopped in the interstate contributed negligence to a rear-end accident behind it. You indicated no ... which 1. Is far too black and white for any attorney I know, 2. Seems like a concession of any claim under against that van driver/company/carrier, and 3. oh I don't remember the circusmtance too well, but I recall some issue with a UM/UIM ... but it would be a concession of any UM under your own policy against that van driver as well.
Too many concessions that are based in logic and ethics ... it just doesn't add up.
File suit and invite everyone to the game at once and you lose this opportunity to pick off every potentially liable party one-by-one.
No shock that insurance costs continue to rise (along with profit). Redistribution of wealth that really only affects the average insured.
Now if somebody cut you off and you struck them in the rear because they cut you off and just missed clipping your bumper, that would be a different story...
But with all the traffic jams we have here, traffic often comes to a stop, one second driving 65 and the next coming to a stop...if you rearend the guy in front of you then YOU are at fault...
GA is a hybrid-comparative negligence state...true comparative would mean that each driver is assigned their percentage of fault, totalling up to 100% (obviously)...In GA, the injured party (victim) must be less than 50% at fault or they cannot recover from the other party...
Example for all of you: in a comparative state, if one is 40% at fault, any monetary award would be reduced by 40%, your percentage of fault...in GA, it is rarely reduced, but you cannot pursue the other driver unless the other driver is OVER 50% at fault...your percentage of fault must be less than 50% or you cannot recover from the other driver...
http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/negligence.html
All of the logic presented here makes perfect sense ... but none of it would prevent suit being filed and heard ... and likely victorious on behalf of the plaintiff based on the average jury these days.
In October of 2010, I brought my car into my dealer for service...it was a lease up in 4 months, and as I was waiting I started looking at the cars in the showroom and talking to a salesperson...they suggested taking a brand new model, driving it for a week (including a free tank of gas!), and seeing what I thought...sure, I thought, no harm here. I gave them my insurance information, and I assumed liability.
Next morning on way to school,I get t-boned and the car is totaled...fortunately neither my daughter or I was hurt. Dealer had car towed back to dealership, and my wife picked me up.
The dealership was paid by my insurance (less my deductible)...however, they were paid more than the sticker and also full tax...my guess is it was around 4K more than I was going to pay, plus about 9% tax. They called me to pay my deductible, I told them they had been paid more than enough, and I never heard from them again.
Of course, my insurance went up 60%...yuk.
I realize it's been nearly two years, but I don't think there is some statute of limitations...and if there is, I'd imagine I'm within the time frame, but I have a couple questions:
Can I ask the dealer to split any "profits", and are they obligated to in any way? I'm not looking to profit, but it would be nice to at least get the difference in my insurance premium. Also, do dealers have to pay the sales tax to the state (CA) in this instance...how does that work? Do they take ownership of the wreck?
Thanks...it's been bugging me for a while now, and I figure I might as well do something before it's too late, if it already isn't.
Under the heading of 'Other Automobiles Covered'- "Your coverage also applies to certain other automobiles. It applies to an automobile you do not own which is a temporary substitute for your automobile. Your automobile must be out of use because of breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction."
Technically, if a dealership allowed me an extended test drive (be it hours or days) but my car wasn't out of service, my insurance might not cover it. The key factor is that my car is "out of service" and the loaner/rental is a temporary replacement.
Earlier this year, I was car shopping and the Volvo dealer let me take a car for the weekend. I called my insurance company to let them know and they just asked for the make/model and how long I would be driving it. But there is no guarantee that they would have covered it if I hadn't called in advance and ended up having an accident!
In reality, most people wouldn't even think to call the insurance company in a that kind of situation. But I'm an Insurance Agent, so my first thought in any situation is "am I covered?"!!!
As to whether the OP has any claim on any perceived 'surplus' payment to the dealer, the answer is NO. Your negligence resulted in the destruction of the dealer's asset (car). The settlement between your insurer and the dealer probably consisted of more than just the price of the car. It is likely that they were compensated for "loss of use" or something similar as well as payment for their time and effort dealing with the claim.
But the main factor is that you didn't suffer any sort of financial loss, therefore you are NOT entitled to any compensation from your insurer.'
As for the 60% increase in premium, that's quite steep! If this is the only accident you've had in the past three years and you have no violations for at least three years, you should consider shopping for new coverage!
1. There really was no "loss" for the dealer...this was a brand new car they were going to sell me...basically they got full sticker and then more because I totalled the car! Yes, they had to tow the car back to the dealer (5 miles away)...that couldn't cost them more than a couple hundred at most, if not zero. I saw the settlement...it was based on sticker...somehow, the dealership convinced the insurance company that my car was worth 4K more than sticker!
2. My premium increase was steep, but at least it's only for a year! And I was paying very little. Also, since it was my fault (70/30), the other driver (20 year old Honda) not only got full replacement but 50K in personal injury...there was no ambulance, fyi...just soft tissue damage is my guess.
3. My feeling about this is that if I'm on the hook if the dealer gets underpaid, shouldn't I share in the profits if they are overpaid? That would seem fair, but then again, life isn't fair, is it?
4. The deductible was to be paid directly to the dealer...however, when I said they had been paid more than enough, they dropped the issue. This, to me at least, is a sign that they were overpaid and they know it.
I know I should just forget about it, but I just want to exhaust my options beforehand.
Thanks.
The dealership was not owed sticker price in my opinion. Replacement cost of that vehicle... that they had not sold yet ... is essentially dealer cost ... what it will cost the dealer to replace that vehicle. Sticker is the same as if they had "sold" the vehicle and includes profit for them which they had not earned at the time of loss ... additionally, I'm skeptical that they pay sales tax on the vehicle that they have not sold ... so I believe they pocketed the 4k sales tax as well.
Yep, everyone ripped off the carrier ... guess what, your carrier still makes money. They take it out of the average guy ... shocker.
And 50k to settle soft tissue?? Blame that on juries.
1. "Insurance fraud" is the "business model" every time when insurance is involved (especially in health care), so no surprise here.
2. Be ready to be sued for bodily harm. That is what my brother is going through: he slightly rear-ended someone in a traffic jam at 5 mph or so 2 years ago; now, after 2 years, out of the blue, he is sued (it looks like another party had a pre-existing spine problem, and tries to milk a situation).
3. What you'd like to do is also "milking the situation". Yes, it hurts to see that someone profited at the expense of your insurance, and urges to try to share in the loot.
4. If you ask what is fair, sorry. I feel that if someone is at fault in an accident, it is fair for him to pay deductible, to have his premium raised, to pay fine for a moving violation, and to have his license suspended for maybe from 6 months to 2 years.
5. That said, I believe that most insurers nowaday advertise their "accident forgiveness" for the first accident in 5 years or so; so, you might be able to get a better treatment.
I disagree. Isn't that a bit harsh? I may be at fault because I had a tire blow out or some other unforeseen mechanical problem.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
This would simply result in a greater number of people driving with a suspended license. Not everyone lives in a major metro area - in fact, most people don't. How would they get to work?
Here we enter the area of hypothetical, because the actual law is either different or not enforced. But it is still a useful exercise, to try to construct a better world in our mind. Also, I recollect how the things worked out in the past, when I learned driving, when (and where) common sense and personal responsibility were more in fashion.
If the accident was caused by an unforeseeable and unsurmountable (because of the laws of physics) force, you are not at fault. Accidents happen. If the problem was caused by the poor maintenance, you are at fault and have to cope with consequences. It is better to have more people not driving than driving badly and putting others in danger. We have the right to be reasonably safe at the public streets. You are not going to allow just everybody to wield a firearm, for example. Driving is a privilege. Not living close to public transportation? Too bad. I remember (well, not in this country) when only one in 10 or 20 people had a car, and public transportation was tough, often even worse than we have now. 20-30-min walk to the bus stop or subway was pretty common. Children walked to their schools, rain, shine, or snow. And nobody died because of that.
I am not sure if he really changed the story or was forced to do it by his insurance company. I suspect of that because most companies explicitly forbid their customers to discuss any responsibility with anybody (except with the police and the company). Actually, it doesn't even matter: another driver could as well just to say me that he is not at fault, there is no proof, no police report, bye-bye! The only practical advice I had so far was from my (late) insurance agent: that next time I have to fake an injury. I still miss my $500!
This "fatalities" argument is invoked every time in many threads to justify bad driving, "inconsiderate" drivers, and even texting while driving. I for one is not thrilled to be just said "calm down, you are still less likely to die". With modern cars, full of safety features and basically taking away from us most of what driving used to be, it is a shame we ever have ANY fatalities. "Lowest rates" doesn't mean everything is alright. First, recently fatalities spiked. We don't know yet if it is a trend. Second, I would submit that these low numbers are because we still have quite many older male drivers on the road, who are mostly not addicted to electronic gizmos and socializing, and maybe learned some driving at some point. When we are gone, things may change. Low fatality numbers are at our expense: non-distracted drivers have to watch out for others and correct their errors. So far we manage, more or less. But when we become overwhelmed ... And no, I am pretty sure the drivers on average are lousier now.
By the way, I am not really happy to have a non-fatal accident either, even just a fender-bender, by no fault of mine.
I'm turning 60 in a couple of months and I love my mp3. It even has a remote control that I use since it doesn't interface with my steering wheel controls. :shades:
Back to insurance, if I do have another at-fault wreck, it seems to me that switching insurance companies at the next renewal would be the thing to do (unless I happen to get amazing service from the current carrier or they have a forgiveness clause).
My thinking is that I pay premiums to get coverage. After a wreck, I assume I'll be a higher risk and any premium anywhere would be higher, but why "reward" my current carrier for doing what I paid them to do and then have them raise my rates?
I like it too. But I have to admit that since even the basic tune info (singer, title) and music file navigation (folder browsing) became available, it became more of a distraction than I would be comfortable with.
Since I moved, I've been with the same insurance company for two years now. Almost a record.
The availability of computerized models at low costs help make a myriad of actuarial charts easier to compile and update.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Most Americans DO see a benefit to the risk of driving. I'm less concerned about dying in an auto accident than I am wasting precious hours of my life trying to get from point A to point B. Sure, I could walk to the grocery, at a cost of 1 hour of my life every day (every day, because there's only so much I can carry). I could walk to the nearest bus station, 20 miles away, when I want to visit my parents, and then walk another 5 miles to their house. But why?
Plus, there are plenty of traffic deaths that are avoidable or caused by the person who meets their demise - alcohol, distraction/inattention, inadequate safety features in vehicle or failure to use features (seatbelts, headlights), driving in known dangerous conditions (icy roads)... there are choice that affect your likelihood of survival.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle