I did use an "I" example for simplicity, but the example was actually used to try and find out how my claim against the person who hit me will affect her insurance. I hope she doesn't get cancelled. She was negligent, but still a nice person
Just so I am absolutely clear (sorry, I have a very specific reason for asking this question) whether I settle with her insurance for $20K or $40, whether I get an attorney who settles for $20K, $30K or even $50K, or whether an attorney I hire is forced to take my claim to court and gets an even higher reward, the impact to the at-fault insured's premiums should be the same (damage already done), her driving record should be impacted the same regardless of the amount, etc.? Sound about right?
One other factor to consider, I believe, is your policy limits...your limits may actually affect you more than your insurance company...and, therefore, also affected by an attorney on the other side...
example: if a person handles their own claim, the most an insurance can offer is your policy limits...and that is assuming that the other side has damages to justify the money...a $1000 med bill will not settle for $50K unless someone lost an eye or something ultra serious...low med bills, if simple neck and back pain, often settle for low amounts...
But, suppose the person has $12K in meds, and you have a $25K policy...the case is probably worth, say, $25-40K, but all they can offer is $25K because that is all you purchased...they can't offer more than you bought...
If the party settles themselves, they may take the $25K (and, to beat a dead horse, if they had medpay in a medpay state, so their med bills were paid, it makes acceping $25K much easier, because they keep all the money...:):):)...)...
But, if they must pay med bills out of settlement, they may not feel that your "maximum" of $25K is enough, so they may hire an attorney to sue you, knowing the atty will get a percentage, but hoping that enough $$$ is awarded by a jury to more than cover the atty fee, expenses of suit, etc...
Now, the attorney wants to know more about you...this may sound offensive, but someone who drives a 1972 Nova and lives in an apartment probably does not have much in the way of assets, so what good is a $60K jury award against a person with no assets, and who could file CH 7 and blow out the entire award except the $25K that the insurance must pay???...now, if the party drives a Lexus and lives in Saddle Brook, NJ, near where the Nixon's lived, then a lawsuit may be worth it...so many folks just want to sue, but aren't sufficiently aware to know that you can get a JUDGMENT against anybody for anything, but the point is to collect the $$$...I, for one, don't sue people just for "the principle" of it, as it wastes my time, their time and does nothing for anybody except "satisfaction"...I do not have the time to sue just for your "satisfaction" and I will NOT clog the courts with stupid lawsuits just to make people happy...especially on a contingency case...now, if you are willing to front the $3-10K for the hourly rate, depositions costs, expert witness costs, etc. we might talk, but no one in their right mind will do that, and rightfully so...
BTW, a nugget of wisdom for you...whenever, and this applies, IMO, 100% of the time, whenever someone says it is the principle and not the money, make no mistake, IT IS THE MONEY and nothing else...because, if it WAS the principle, they would have no problempaying or borrowing the $$$ to prosecute the case...but when they want ME to front the costs and expenses on THEIR principled case, they wilt...I am always amazed how willing they are to spend MY money on their principles...:):):):):)...
I am not sure if the amount of the payout causes them to drop you sooner, but common sense, or at least my sense, which may not be common, says that if they pay out one wreck at $100K, they would be more lilely to drop you than 3 wrecks with a total payout of $20K...but I really am only guessing, as, in their minds, 3 acts of negligence may make you more of a risk to them than the one payout of $100K, for your only accident in the last 20 years...
Hey, if I REALLY knew what made ins companies tick, you think I would still be working for a living???...:):):)
I recently got my car back from the body shop that took care of an insurance repair on my car. I had an accident where the other driver rear-ended me. Simple bumper repair and paint. Their insurance took care of everything, but when I got my car back I noticed that the rest of my car had a sort of rough feel to the ordinarly smooth, slippery paint finish. It's not everywhere, but on a good deal of the body surfaces. I am very meticulous with the care of my car paint, hand washing only and babying the finish of the car. Needless to say, I'm concerned.
My first thought that this was overspray that somehow got on the car. But thought that the rear bumper that got replaced would be painted when it was off the car rather then when it was installed... and if installed, then the rest of the car would have been masked.
I'm trying to figure out if this is really overspray or some other strange coating that resulting from the car being in the body shop. Also, do I have any recourse if it is overspray - will the body shop buff/clay the car to get it off? I've already clayed a small portion of the car and saw an immediate improvement. Anyone else out there experience this and have any suggestions?
the impact to the at-fault insured's premiums should be the same (damage already done), her driving record should be impacted the same regardless of the amount, etc.? Sound about right?
It's overspray. Logically, you would think that the body shop would paint the bumper when it wasn't on the car, but they don't always do that. They will often mount it to the car, mask off the car (poorly), and hope the car's owner doesn't notice it. "Hoping they don't notice" seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, with a lot of body shop work.
Take it back to the body shop and ask them to fix it properly. Check for overspray around the taillamps, trunk seal, etc., after they finish.
Thanks for that... I actually went to bed after I wrote my post and stewed so hard I couldn't get to sleep. Resolved to take it in this AM and talked them through it. They were very appologetic and acknowledged it is overspray. They are doing a polish/buff to get it off. Hoping they don't overdo it, but they will make it right... or else. Will let you know how it goes.
This goes back to some posts of mine from a couple of months ago regarding a claim I have against the at-fault insured's insurance company for a rear end collission. When the insured person hit me, she was extremely apologetic, said she saw me fly forward in my seat from the impact, said I appeared very shaken and in shock, and that I might be injured so I should consider going to the hospital. I did not go to the hospital that night but sure enough, I was hurting by a few hours later and went the next morning. Continued to treat for many months.
Way back when, Marsha7 pointed out that unless the person was willing to repeat that statement, it does me no good. Well, she is willing to put it in writing in a signed witness statement...just what I said above and 100% truthfully.
My question is, how much does this help my claim? I'm not looking for a "go ahead and write a blank check" kind of response. I only want to know how much this is going to help me get a FAIR settlement (we're not quite there yet). There was low damage to my car but doesn't her statement go to prove that the impact of a super-SUV against a midsized sedan might not cause a lot of physial damage but that impact gets absorbed by something, i.e., ME.
And more importantly, does her statement hold as much weight now that she is no longer insured through the same company?
statement in writing, notarized if possible, as soon as you finish reading this post, just in case she gets run over by a train while you wait...:):):)...
Her new ins co does not matter, as long as it is the former company processing your claim, which it should be...even when a company drops you, they still must insure you up until the day you were dropped, which is usually the day of the wreck...
I believe that the statement cannot hurt and can only help you...if the at-fault party saw you go flying against the dash or bounced around inside, it will certainly offset any adjuster who thinks that a low speed collision or low property damage caused you no impact inside the vehicle...
Now that you have read this post, I expect that you should have that statement in hand by tonite at 9:00 pm, when I will try and come back to this topic...now, GO!!!
...:):):):):)...
P.S. A FAIR settlement is always in the eyes of the beholder...
I can't report back by 9PM I'm afraid. The lady moved out of state so I had to send her a written witness statement based on our conversation and ask her to sign and return it. I sent that out within 1 hour of our discussion
It is possible she won't return it, but I would be in shock. I've seriously never in my life met someone so honest, accomodating and apologetic, both today and at the scene of the accident. She seemed willing to just about bend over backwards to help. Doesn't hurt that she was involved in this type of accident years ago that left permanent damage.
I will, however, lose all faith in the human race if she has a complete change of heart. Per my earlier question on this board, I made sure to point out that a small difference in the final settlement is not likely to do any more damage to her premiums/driving record than has already been done. Thanks for that info!!
In terms of fairness, well, as subjective as it is, I'm really just not asking for all that much. But you'd think I was asking the adjuster for a kidney or her first born. Oh wait...I'm working on MY firstborn . Got a little confused.
So I got my car back today and the body shop did an excellent job buffing things out. Smooth and silky finish as it once was. Happy ending, but could have been happier if they had done it right the first time. Everyone make a mental note to check the finish before you leave the lot after a body repair.
8:52 pm, EDT...I have checked back, but you have done the best you could...I hope you included a space for a Notary Public to officiate the signature...mandatory???...no, but it certainly would help to authenticate the signature...
Admire your level of car care. Remember to examine the glass as well. 0000 steel wool has removed overspray from glass for me, however, I'd appreciate the body shop removing the overspray from the rest of the car.
I don't think her statement will hurt or help you. She's not qualified to assess your medical condition and in any contest they could just tear that kind of written statement to shreds should they choose to fight you. So I don't think it's as important as it seems.
You have to remember that the insurance process is highly impersonal...it's a game of numbers only. The "opposing" insurance company doesn't care if you beat them or even care if they beat you...there is neither glory nor regret in this kind of thing for the insurance companies. It's just bean-counting and bottom line.
I think if she admits fault and your claim is not outrageous you'll do fine---although the system grinds very slowly. I'm sure you know you can settle the damage part without settling the medical part. Don't fall for signing a "waiver" on medical in order to get the material damage---doesn't work that way.
From shiftright: "I don't think her statement will hurt or help you. She's not qualified to assess your medical condition and in any contest they could just tear that kind of written statement to shreds should they choose to fight you. So I don't think it's as important as it seems."
Shiftright is certainly correct in that the other person is not qualified to determine your medical condition...but even a layperson can testify (or affidavit or a notarized statement) as to what they actually observed happen to you in terms of the physical bouncing you endured...I still believe that it cannot, in any way, hurt your case, and I still believe that it may help simply because if an adjuster is thinking that you just sat in your seat held in by the seatbelt, a statement from their insured that you were hurled about the driver's compartment can still imply serious impact...that is all I meant, and I still stand by it...
But I do agree with shiftright that it is just a numbers game with them, unless suit is filed...but even then, while they do try to win, it just goes in their win-loss column, win some, lose some...
Quite true,but I've seen the dark side of these disputes...why couldn't the insurance company's attorney claim that the excessive motion of the driver implied that no seat belt was being worn?
Picture of the bruises from the seat belts would be good, assuming that was the case. Accident report comment on that issue perhaps? Don't know the details, so just speculating.
in GA, even tho it is the law to wear seatbelts, it is inadmissible evidence in court to state whether or not someone was wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident...if you could see some of those safety dummy films in the possession of GM, Ford, Insurance Institute, etc, you would also know that seatbelts really do not do half of what people believe they do...you can still hit the roof or windshield, bounce off the steering wheel or driver's door, etc....what seatbelts do best is keep you in the car, which is safer than being thrown from the vehicle, preventing the Jayne Mansfield fiasco of years ago...that is, if you are old enough to remember Jayne Mansfield...
Seatbelts can also worsen injuries to the neck by somewhat stabilizing your upper body while your neck flies back and forth, injuring your neck, upper back, and even your lower back...
So, one could wear a seatbelt and still go flying around the compartment, but sorta held in the driver;s area by the belt...I personally wear my belt all the time, as the injury from the belt is still less than flying thru glass...and don't count on airbags either, because unless you are hit straight head-on, and not at a slight angle, they often are not designed to deploy, even tho from a biomechanical viewpoint, a 20 degree angle head-on collision injures your neck the same as a perfect head-on, but the bags will not deploy...
The real truth, whether we will admit it or not, is that humans were NOT designed to hurtle thru the air at speeds upwards of 15-20 mph or more, and then come to a sudden stop in under one second...we do it, we often live, and then we blame seatbelts or collapsible steering columns for injuring us when we really should be riding bicycles...
But we will not be giving up our cars soon, unless gas hits $4.00 per gallon...:):):):)
All very good points and I appreciate the commentary. What I would settle for out of this is an acknowledgement that an impact causing less than $1000 car damage is not always just a tap...there can be a decent amount of impact. Their main argument at this stage is that there was little damage therefore I could not have been that injured. Nice logic, but simply not true. I'm looking for one more little piece of evidence to counter that point.
A pic of a seatbelt mark would be nice, but the worst thing I had were two small red lines that didn't result in a bruise...I don't think. By the next day I was so focused on the back and neck pain that some red marks or even a bruise didn't register in my brain. And I wasn't setting myself up for a claim or a lawsuit so evidence was the last thing on my mind. Live and learn I guess. The only thing I have on that point is that the police report and all of my medical documentation say I was wearing a seatbelt. But that's just my word.
I guess I'll do the best I can with what I've got.
for better or worse, is considered the truth of what happened, so if it says you wore them, there would be no dispute from anyone else...
I have had clients whose car was rear-ended hard enough to send it flying thru an intersection onto the other side, and the energy bumpers absorbed so much that the damages were only $750.00, yet the person is almost paralyzed...
Ins takes advantage of that fact, and juries do not understand the physics of kinetic energy, so the injured get screwed, but there isn't much we can do about it, unless a bystander took a video by chance, kinda like the Zapruder films of JFK...
While I realize that this is a self-serving statement, one of the advantages of getting an atty right away is that we DO think of collecting the evidence right away, because we know that ins wants to screw you, whereas most everyone believes that ins is out to help them and treat them fairly...so, while you think of your back pain (and we do, too, just not as much as you do...:):):)...), we see the business side of it and want evidence as fresh as possible...so, while you think of which doctor to go to, we need photos of your black and blue chest from when it struck the steering wheel (no, silly, not porn shots), because when we submit them in a demand package, adjusters know how women on a jury will react if they see photos of a woman whose breasts are deep blue, as THEY will know how much pain she was suffering...
We just had a case of a motorcycle wreck, the biker was the victim, and he was black and blue all over...we had some naked photos of him, tasteful of course, but still showed his black and blue private parts showing where he struck the bar on the bike just before he was hurled 137 feet from the scene...it made me wice just to look at the pictures myself...he was in that color for 4 months...
So, we see your accident case as a battle from day one, so we sometimes, ahem, actually think like lawyers with some foresight...hey, SOMEBODY has to look at this objectively, might as well be us...and, we do hope to be well-paid for the process...
After a nice dinner at a downtown Boston restaurant we came outside to retrieve our car from the valet. They sheepishly drove the car (2005 Subaru WRX) up in front of the restaurant as their on-site manager started explaining to me that one of their drivers accidentally had driven it into a pole in the garage it was parked in. They apologized and explained they had insurance to cover this sort of thing and we exchanged information. I brought the car to my body shop who provided an estimate of $4,800 using OEM parts. Their insurance appraiser put the estimate at $2,200 with non-OEM parts. When the car is actually fixed I would expect the appraiser will have to add some supplemental damage and raise their estimate, but since they are dealing in non-OEM parts I wouldn't expect them to get near my body shops estimate. So, my questions:
1) I feel like the valet company should be obligated to restore the car to it's original condition, using OEM parts. Non-OEM parts will reduce the value of the car. I doubt that arguing with their insurer will produce any results. What is the likelihood that I would be able to recover the $$$ difference between OEM and non-OEM parts if I were to sue the valet company (or should I be suing the insurance company) in small claims court?
2) Some of the damage was to one of my tires and it needs to be replaced. The owner's manual says that if one tire is replaced they all need to be replaced or the car will be unsafe. A talk with my Subaru dealer confirmed this. Of course, the insurance estimate only includes replacing one tire (with a deduction for "betterment"). I feel they should be obligated to put me back in a safe car and therefore should replace all four tires (with 4 deductions for "betterment"). Is the insurance appraiser likely to give on this, or should this be added to my lawsuit?
You might check with YOUR ins co and see if they will repair it with OEM parts, since it is only 1 -2 years old...my thinking is this, and I may be wrong, but it could be worth a shot...if your company repair with OEM, they may go after the other company for you and recover all the $$$ they spent to repair...while you would be out your deductible at first, when they recover, they would also recover your ded and send it to you...no guarantee, but worth calling and asking...
if one tire is bad, all 4 must be replaced???...this is tricky...I can see an ins co replacing 1 tire, but it could require a court of law to force them to do that...
Or, if my collision idea above works, then a certified letter from the dealer to your ins could cause them to replace all 4 tires, and then the recovery from the other company would be the same...
if it works, I am a genius...if not, you are no worse off than you are right now...
That's an excellent point. I had inquired with my agent and he says that in this sort of accident I would be responsible for the deductible (which I suppose I could go to court for) because this is treated just as if I had lent the car to a friend (in which case I would be responsible for the deductible if the friend wrecked the card).
As for the tires, yes, if one goes they all go. This is fairly common in All Wheel Drive cars because the AWD system depends on all four tires being within a very small difference in circumference. Subaru said that once 20% of the tread depth has been driven away (and it has) it's all or nothing.
If it makes a significant difference of 1/16th inch forcing all new tires instead of one, why not just take a new one out of stock and grind it down to the circumferance of the other three? (I would be surprised if the other three measured exactly the same.)
After market body parts don't satisfy me. It's like being served Rabbit in the restaurant when you paid for Chicken.
Only OEM parts are acceptable in every case. Hang tough. :mad:
I understand your argument about OEM in every case, but I believe that we only require them if the car is 2 years old or less, or, no other source available...
Once a car is 3 years old, certainly 4, to demand OEM parts would rarely be approved, unless OEM parts are similar in price to others...also, I think after 2 years, they can use used parts, i.e., a used right front fender or bumper from a vehicle that was totalled from the rear...
OR, the carrier will pay for non-OEM parts, and you can pay the difference for the OEM price, and get brand new DC fenders for your 2001 Intrepid...
I was in the same situation a few years ago; rear ended by someone following entirely too close to me, and as i had to stop to let a fire engine turn in front of me the other way, she hit me. All right in front of police and fireman!
Anyway, I called my insurance co., exlained what happened, and then followed up with them a few days later. By this time, an adjuster from my co. had looked at the car, and given me an estimate on damages. My insurance co had sort of a "la de da" attitude had hadn't done much in terms of contacting her insurance co, so I called myself, and had much better luck dealing directly with them. THey asked me for soem additional information and once i gave it to them, had a check for my deductible and other damage within several days.
It all depends on how your insurance co handles things. I am kind of impatient, and when my company hadn't done much on it, I took matters into my own hands. My insurance co had no problem with that. Since NJ is a no-fault state, my co handled my medical bills. And my rental car was billed directly to HER insurance too. All in all, not too difficult, but i'm not sure how long it woudl have taken had I let my co. handle in on their own.
My wife had an accident where she was not at fault, an oncoming car crossed the center line and hit her. She is OK. They refunded us the two days pay she missed, and are fixing the car. I am not greedy, but somehow this does not seem like enough, after all the appointments and paperwork and the fact that my car was newer and perfect before and now it is a rebuilt. In such cases do most people go for some other type of compensation, either through insurance or directly with the person at fault? Should I just shut up and get over it? :sick:
Some other type of compensation for what? Maybe an inconvenience reimbursement? They're fixing your car, but in some states you "may" be able to get diminished value, but from what I hear, it's tough to prove.
I know being involved in an accident sucks, but from what you've stated, you and your wife came out lucky. My advice, count your blessings......
Of all days, the day I gave birth to our fifth child, my husband was in an accident on the way home from bringing my two eldest to visit their new little sister. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but the entire front end of our brand new Honda Odyssey is a crumpled mess. We bought it two months ago specifically because our prior Odyssey couldn't fit 5 carseats.
Now the insurance company is saying it isn't totaled, that it'll be fine if it's just fixed. But a fixed car isn't the same as a new car, and the accident was not our fault! There was even a policeman ON THE SCENE. I'm very worried that a fixed car that ought to be totaled will not be safe for our family of seven, with all the traveling we do to school, etc, not to mention long-distance grandparents!
At what point should we refuse to accept a mere fix? I refuse to compromise my family's safety in any way, especially when what happened was due not to any fault of ours, but a 24 year-old hotshot who wanted to prove to his buddies that he was too cool to stop at a stoplight.
I apologize, perhaps I may be overreacting, but my concern specifically is that if there is indeed frame damage (which has not yet been confirmed...), then simply "fixing" the frame does not give us a vehicle in its original condition. If you had 5 kids and drove all the time, would you buy a vehicle that you knew had some frame damage, as long as it had been "fixed"???
Therefore, what I was trying to determine is: at what point is a "fixed" car less safe than a new car? In my mind, a car with a damaged frame is not a car I'm going to want to keep driving all the time for the next 5-10 years (we don't buy new cars often)...even if it has been "fixed".
Would anyone care to contribute their two cents to this particular question? I would love to hear what others have to say about this.
I'm in the same situation. The at-fault driver's insurance company should pay you for diminished value, which is the difference in value between your repaired car and a car of the same age and condition that had never been wrecked. You should be able to sell the repaired car and purchase a similar replacement with a clean history with the proceeds from the sale and the diminished value settlement.
Edit for clarification: On my vehicle, the frame was bent and straightened, a bunch of components were replaced, including the radiator and A/C condensor, and the car was driven with no coolant for several miles as a result of the body shop's failure to properly attach all the radiator hoses. I understand where you're coming from, and although I believe my car is safe to drive, I don't want to deal with a finger-pointing game between the manufacturer's warranty department and the insurance company/body shop if/when one of those components breaks, or if the engine self-destructs due to being run with no coolant.
In such a matter, where is the big fee to attact an attorney's interest.
This is an example of many of life's situations that we should take care of ourselves, not feeling entitled to an attorney for the little and unimportant happenings we encounter. Do we no longer have the wit to handle our own problems?
I don't get your point. In the example I illustrated, I said "if push comes to shove", meaning as a last resort after attempting to work everything out with the ins co first. Need I go on?
I think that you'll find that your vehicle doesn't actually have a "frame". And that any "frame" damage that is being fixed is actually to part of the unibody of the vehicle. In fact, many parts on a unibody are made to collapse in an accident to make your vehicle safer. That being said, they are fortunately reproduced by your vehicle's manufacturer and offered for sale so that they may be replaced.
I also wouldn't argue that there are certain structural elements of your vehicle that are more important than others, but to put this in perspective -- your windshield is a structural element of your vehicle. The point is that cars are made to be repaired, that's why they make replacement parts; however, in many cases repairs are better and safer than replacement of parts due to the extent of welding required to replace some parts -- and the propensity for some inattentive techs to not have the innate ability for welding that a robot may.
I'm not familiar with the repairs being completed on your vehicle -- and to be honest, I'm not entirely sure you are either. But, if you have concerns surrounding these repairs you should first have a heart-to-heart with the shop completing the repairs and get their opinion (not the opinion that the insurance company gives them.)
After that, perhaps you can consult your local Department of Insurance regarding their regulations -- maybe they can offer you some options -- I hope that may help.
Now, for my take on the reality of the situation. It sucks that your vehicle requires repairs due to someone elses negligence -- I agree. The courts will likely not uphold your implied claim that every vehicle in an accident should be replaced with another of like-kind-and quality -- The planet certainly would disagree as well.
Has the safety of your vehicle been compromised by the accident and ensuing repairs? Maybe, maybe not. I'll tell you what really compromises safety though -- far more significantly than any repaired sheet metal or frame. Low tire pressure, worn brake pads, worn rotors, worn ball-joints, damaged tie-rods, cell-phones, lack of seat-belt usage, loose items in your vehicle that turn into projectiles in accidents, improperly adjusted seat-belts in child seats, things hanging from a rear-view mirror, driving into the sun, driving too fast for conditions, bald tires, eating while driving, looking at your watch while driving, looking at your children while driving, dark tinted windows, leaving the car running with the windows open, etc... My point is not so much that you don't deserve a car as safe as it was before, it is only to illustrate the myriad of things that we all do every day that are exceedingly more dangerous than a proper repair -- yet (and I'm not saying you were) some would consider giving thousands of dollars to an attorney to protect that difference -- I guess it's your choice, personally I'll just not use the phone while driving and save myself a few grand.
My boyfriend was involved in a serious accident about a month ago. His Mercedes Benz was totaled due to the complete fault of the other driver who crossed five lanes, and struck his car. As a result, he is due to receive a settlement offer from his own insurer, under Collision Coverage.
He was required to pay a $500 deductible to make his claim under his collision coverage.
He had leased the vehicle, and was not able to recover Acquisition fees, sales/use tax, document fees, first year's title,license, registration fees, CA tire fees, Purchase Option Fees, and Disposition fees from his own insurer.
My questions are threefold.
1) May he recover the $500 deductible he had to pay in addition to all the other miscellaneous leasing fees from the other guy's insurance, if he has already received a settlement package that does not include these items from his own collision coverage?
I would like to argue that this is definitely recoverable, as he would not have incurred any of these fees had it not been for the other guy's reckless and dangerous driving.
However, I'd like to know if there is some state insurance law provision (CA) that would limit his recovery for these abovementioned items from the other guy's insurance.
Secondly, he will not be signing any release or waiver of rights to sue additional parties just because he will be accepting the settlement package. His insurer does not require this.
Any insight or references to state insurance codes would be of help.
I'm not sure I can answer all of your questions properly.
But, as far as the deductible, yes, he should be getting that back.
There is one problem here, though, and that is gap insurance. The at-fault party's insurance will only pay the value of the car. Being a lease, your boyfriend owes much more than its true value. This is where gap insurance comes in. Since it is a lease, he has gap insurance. That insurance will have to cover the difference between what the at-fault party's insurance pays and what is owed on the vehicle.
This is where it may get tricky. The gap insurance MIGHT take ALL of the payout from the at-fault into account, INCLUDING the $500 deductible and subtract it from their payout. So your boyfriend may still be out $500.
As far as all the fees, etc, I'm not sure that is recoverable either. At least not through insurance. Any time a vehicle is wrecked, regardless of lease or finance, the owner of said vehicle loses out on the taxes and fees.
But maybe a professional in the field can help you out more with your questions. I could be totally off base.
'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
Using his own insurance concludes the adverse party didn't have any. Thus, there may be a claim under Uninsured Motorist Property Damage. It is a coverage whereby you are buying Liability Insurance for the other at fault driver.
As such, the array of fees including S.T. & pro rating the license tabs may be covered under the U.M. unless specifically excluded. Read the policy under Exclusions in the U.M. section.
IMO, all related fees, taxes, & license should be honored because you can't replace a vehicle without paying those expenses. (If an insurance company can pay for storage of a wreck until the title is cleared they should be able to pay for the S.T. and other related charges.)
Who is paying for the injuries suffered by the occupants of the M/B?
Your point was different than mine which broadly referred to the fact that if people did the right thing (e.g., adequately compensated someone whom they or their insured injured, there would be no need for lawyers).
Using his own insurance concludes the adverse party didn't have any.
Not really. Alot of folks go through their own insurance to get the repair done quickly rather than waiting for the opposing insurance to do their interviews, investigation, etc. Also, it puts the burden on your own insurance to go after the opposing insurance for payment. It seems to be the popular way to go. Personally, I've learned its worth it to go after the opposing insurance myself. But that's another story.
'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
Actually, attorneys often do what other people are unable or unwilling to do...many people are not of the confrontational mentality when dealing with insurance companies, and they think that the opposing insurance will "take care of them" when the opposite is true...now, I do agree that if the at-fault insurance carriers treated people more fairly, attorneys would need another line of work...but, since it is, in reality, an adversarial system, like it or not, people are often unable to confront the adjuster, and oftentime are not sufficiently knowledgeable to make their case for the most compensation...
To those who ARE able, they do quite well w/o lawyers...but folks often have unrealistic expectations, too, and they need to be informed about certain realities...
Example: it seems about every 15-25 posts, someone is stating that since their 2005/2006 vehicle, almost new, has suffered $7K-10K in damages, they all seem to think that the repaired car will never be as good as new, so they think that their car should be totalled...yet, this is really a disconnect from reality, as no car that cost over $25K would EVER be totalled for that amount of damage, but so many folks just have that opinion that since their car is nearly new, any damage they expect a new vehicle...
Also, my various treatises on the need for medpay, gap ins, UM and rental car ins (assuming you are in a state where they apply to you)...so many people will reveal that they have medpay to the opposing carrier, which now puts them at a severe disadvantage for settlement...not impossible, mind you, but that is info that should never be revealed, but most folks think that is the first thing to tell the other ins, and attorneys can help them pocket add'l LEGITIMATE compensation just by knowing the rules and the law...
So, we do perform a service, and for those who are only assertive with the spouse and kids, but wither at the thought of an insurance adjuster, attys can be useful...but are we necessary for survival???...no, but then, look at all the other jobs that folks earn a healthy living but are certainly not necessary for survival...auto salespeople, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, building contractors, insurance salespeople...all of those can be helpful, yet anyone with a working knowledge of that part of life can certainly do without them, regardless of how necessary they may think they are to the scheme of life...attorneys fit into life just like they do, there is a niche for us as there is one for them, for those who need them...
As an attorney myself, I understand (and agree with) your points. Mine was addressed more to philosophical than practical issues.
Another example: I used to do some real estate work and in just about every mortgage refi closing I handled for a client the title company failed to charge the appropriate (lower) title insurance reissuance fee, instead they tried to assess a new rate as though the transaction involved a purchase.
Now, should counsel be necessary in such a transaction? In theory, probably not, yet my experience suggests that there is either gross incompetence among closing agents (principally title companies here) or something more sinister. Either way, representation was a good idea in those cases.
I used to do real estate closings from 97-99...here in GA, only an atty can perform a closing, title agencies not permitted...I thought the statute should be called the "Lawyers Employment Security Act"...:):):)
I was in an accident last week in which it was completely the other person's fault. The police report, my witness, and even the tow truck guy concur. Before contacting my insurance co., i called hers and filed a claim, and i am now in a rental car being billed directly to them. the problem is, when i contacted my insurance co. i found out that my policy had been cancelled before the time of the accident. so what is my next step, and how will this situation pan out? i want to be prepared as well as know what i am (and am not) entitled to. any info is much appreciated.
Do you mean you had no idea you insurance was going to be cancelled? How are you insured for the rental car?
As for the accident withoutinsurance, that would be a citation in this state but shouldn't affect responsibility for damages in the accident if the other person was at fault.
If the other person was at fault, you are "lucky" in the sense that you have no financial responsibility for this wreck (I assume you are in a fault state like GA, a no-fault state where each pursues his own ins co I am not sure of the repercussions)...however, you should have recived a citation for no insurance, but if you showed the cop a "valid" ins card with proper dates, he would not know and you again skimmed by on the skin of your teeth...get ins immediately after reading this post...
Normally you should receive some past due notices, notice of cancellation, something from your ins co, they don't just drop you w/o notice...that is something you had better check on immediately, also...
Comments
I did use an "I" example for simplicity, but the example was actually used to try and find out how my claim against the person who hit me will affect her insurance. I hope she doesn't get cancelled. She was negligent, but still a nice person
Just so I am absolutely clear (sorry, I have a very specific reason for asking this question) whether I settle with her insurance for $20K or $40, whether I get an attorney who settles for $20K, $30K or even $50K, or whether an attorney I hire is forced to take my claim to court and gets an even higher reward, the impact to the at-fault insured's premiums should be the same (damage already done), her driving record should be impacted the same regardless of the amount, etc.? Sound about right?
example: if a person handles their own claim, the most an insurance can offer is your policy limits...and that is assuming that the other side has damages to justify the money...a $1000 med bill will not settle for $50K unless someone lost an eye or something ultra serious...low med bills, if simple neck and back pain, often settle for low amounts...
But, suppose the person has $12K in meds, and you have a $25K policy...the case is probably worth, say, $25-40K, but all they can offer is $25K because that is all you purchased...they can't offer more than you bought...
If the party settles themselves, they may take the $25K (and, to beat a dead horse, if they had medpay in a medpay state, so their med bills were paid, it makes acceping $25K much easier, because they keep all the money...:):):)...)...
But, if they must pay med bills out of settlement, they may not feel that your "maximum" of $25K is enough, so they may hire an attorney to sue you, knowing the atty will get a percentage, but hoping that enough $$$ is awarded by a jury to more than cover the atty fee, expenses of suit, etc...
Now, the attorney wants to know more about you...this may sound offensive, but someone who drives a 1972 Nova and lives in an apartment probably does not have much in the way of assets, so what good is a $60K jury award against a person with no assets, and who could file CH 7 and blow out the entire award except the $25K that the insurance must pay???...now, if the party drives a Lexus and lives in Saddle Brook, NJ, near where the Nixon's lived, then a lawsuit may be worth it...so many folks just want to sue, but aren't sufficiently aware to know that you can get a JUDGMENT against anybody for anything, but the point is to collect the $$$...I, for one, don't sue people just for "the principle" of it, as it wastes my time, their time and does nothing for anybody except "satisfaction"...I do not have the time to sue just for your "satisfaction" and I will NOT clog the courts with stupid lawsuits just to make people happy...especially on a contingency case...now, if you are willing to front the $3-10K for the hourly rate, depositions costs, expert witness costs, etc. we might talk, but no one in their right mind will do that, and rightfully so...
BTW, a nugget of wisdom for you...whenever, and this applies, IMO, 100% of the time, whenever someone says it is the principle and not the money, make no mistake, IT IS THE MONEY and nothing else...because, if it WAS the principle, they would have no problempaying or borrowing the $$$ to prosecute the case...but when they want ME to front the costs and expenses on THEIR principled case, they wilt...I am always amazed how willing they are to spend MY money on their principles...:):):):):)...
I am not sure if the amount of the payout causes them to drop you sooner, but common sense, or at least my sense, which may not be common, says that if they pay out one wreck at $100K, they would be more lilely to drop you than 3 wrecks with a total payout of $20K...but I really am only guessing, as, in their minds, 3 acts of negligence may make you more of a risk to them than the one payout of $100K, for your only accident in the last 20 years...
Hey, if I REALLY knew what made ins companies tick, you think I would still be working for a living???...:):):)
My first thought that this was overspray that somehow got on the car. But thought that the rear bumper that got replaced would be painted when it was off the car rather then when it was installed... and if installed, then the rest of the car would have been masked.
I'm trying to figure out if this is really overspray or some other strange coating that resulting from the car being in the body shop. Also, do I have any recourse if it is overspray - will the body shop buff/clay the car to get it off? I've already clayed a small portion of the car and saw an immediate improvement. Anyone else out there experience this and have any suggestions?
Yep.....
Take it back to the body shop and ask them to fix it properly. Check for overspray around the taillamps, trunk seal, etc., after they finish.
Way back when, Marsha7 pointed out that unless the person was willing to repeat that statement, it does me no good. Well, she is willing to put it in writing in a signed witness statement...just what I said above and 100% truthfully.
My question is, how much does this help my claim? I'm not looking for a "go ahead and write a blank check" kind of response. I only want to know how much this is going to help me get a FAIR settlement (we're not quite there yet). There was low damage to my car but doesn't her statement go to prove that the impact of a super-SUV against a midsized sedan might not cause a lot of physial damage but that impact gets absorbed by something, i.e., ME.
And more importantly, does her statement hold as much weight now that she is no longer insured through the same company?
Thanks much!!
Her new ins co does not matter, as long as it is the former company processing your claim, which it should be...even when a company drops you, they still must insure you up until the day you were dropped, which is usually the day of the wreck...
I believe that the statement cannot hurt and can only help you...if the at-fault party saw you go flying against the dash or bounced around inside, it will certainly offset any adjuster who thinks that a low speed collision or low property damage caused you no impact inside the vehicle...
Now that you have read this post, I expect that you should have that statement in hand by tonite at 9:00 pm, when I will try and come back to this topic...now, GO!!!
...:):):):):)...
P.S. A FAIR settlement is always in the eyes of the beholder...
It is possible she won't return it, but I would be in shock. I've seriously never in my life met someone so honest, accomodating and apologetic, both today and at the scene of the accident. She seemed willing to just about bend over backwards to help. Doesn't hurt that she was involved in this type of accident years ago that left permanent damage.
I will, however, lose all faith in the human race if she has a complete change of heart. Per my earlier question on this board, I made sure to point out that a small difference in the final settlement is not likely to do any more damage to her premiums/driving record than has already been done. Thanks for that info!!
In terms of fairness, well, as subjective as it is, I'm really just not asking for all that much. But you'd think I was asking the adjuster for a kidney or her first born. Oh wait...I'm working on MY firstborn
I'll keep you posted...
You have to remember that the insurance process is highly impersonal...it's a game of numbers only. The "opposing" insurance company doesn't care if you beat them or even care if they beat you...there is neither glory nor regret in this kind of thing for the insurance companies. It's just bean-counting and bottom line.
I think if she admits fault and your claim is not outrageous you'll do fine---although the system grinds very slowly. I'm sure you know you can settle the damage part without settling the medical part. Don't fall for signing a "waiver" on medical in order to get the material damage---doesn't work that way.
Shiftright is certainly correct in that the other person is not qualified to determine your medical condition...but even a layperson can testify (or affidavit or a notarized statement) as to what they actually observed happen to you in terms of the physical bouncing you endured...I still believe that it cannot, in any way, hurt your case, and I still believe that it may help simply because if an adjuster is thinking that you just sat in your seat held in by the seatbelt, a statement from their insured that you were hurled about the driver's compartment can still imply serious impact...that is all I meant, and I still stand by it...
But I do agree with shiftright that it is just a numbers game with them, unless suit is filed...but even then, while they do try to win, it just goes in their win-loss column, win some, lose some...
(yes, I know, it's evil...)
Seatbelts can also worsen injuries to the neck by somewhat stabilizing your upper body while your neck flies back and forth, injuring your neck, upper back, and even your lower back...
So, one could wear a seatbelt and still go flying around the compartment, but sorta held in the driver;s area by the belt...I personally wear my belt all the time, as the injury from the belt is still less than flying thru glass...and don't count on airbags either, because unless you are hit straight head-on, and not at a slight angle, they often are not designed to deploy, even tho from a biomechanical viewpoint, a 20 degree angle head-on collision injures your neck the same as a perfect head-on, but the bags will not deploy...
The real truth, whether we will admit it or not, is that humans were NOT designed to hurtle thru the air at speeds upwards of 15-20 mph or more, and then come to a sudden stop in under one second...we do it, we often live, and then we blame seatbelts or collapsible steering columns for injuring us when we really should be riding bicycles...
But we will not be giving up our cars soon, unless gas hits $4.00 per gallon...:):):):)
A pic of a seatbelt mark would be nice, but the worst thing I had were two small red lines that didn't result in a bruise...I don't think. By the next day I was so focused on the back and neck pain that some red marks or even a bruise didn't register in my brain. And I wasn't setting myself up for a claim or a lawsuit so evidence was the last thing on my mind. Live and learn I guess. The only thing I have on that point is that the police report and all of my medical documentation say I was wearing a seatbelt. But that's just my word.
I guess I'll do the best I can with what I've got.
I have had clients whose car was rear-ended hard enough to send it flying thru an intersection onto the other side, and the energy bumpers absorbed so much that the damages were only $750.00, yet the person is almost paralyzed...
Ins takes advantage of that fact, and juries do not understand the physics of kinetic energy, so the injured get screwed, but there isn't much we can do about it, unless a bystander took a video by chance, kinda like the Zapruder films of JFK...
While I realize that this is a self-serving statement, one of the advantages of getting an atty right away is that we DO think of collecting the evidence right away, because we know that ins wants to screw you, whereas most everyone believes that ins is out to help them and treat them fairly...so, while you think of your back pain (and we do, too, just not as much as you do...:):):)...), we see the business side of it and want evidence as fresh as possible...so, while you think of which doctor to go to, we need photos of your black and blue chest from when it struck the steering wheel (no, silly, not porn shots), because when we submit them in a demand package, adjusters know how women on a jury will react if they see photos of a woman whose breasts are deep blue, as THEY will know how much pain she was suffering...
We just had a case of a motorcycle wreck, the biker was the victim, and he was black and blue all over...we had some naked photos of him, tasteful of course, but still showed his black and blue private parts showing where he struck the bar on the bike just before he was hurled 137 feet from the scene...it made me wice just to look at the pictures myself...he was in that color for 4 months...
So, we see your accident case as a battle from day one, so we sometimes, ahem, actually think like lawyers with some foresight...hey, SOMEBODY has to look at this objectively, might as well be us...and, we do hope to be well-paid for the process...
1) I feel like the valet company should be obligated to restore the car to it's original condition, using OEM parts. Non-OEM parts will reduce the value of the car. I doubt that arguing with their insurer will produce any results. What is the likelihood that I would be able to recover the $$$ difference between OEM and non-OEM parts if I were to sue the valet company (or should I be suing the insurance company) in small claims court?
2) Some of the damage was to one of my tires and it needs to be replaced. The owner's manual says that if one tire is replaced they all need to be replaced or the car will be unsafe. A talk with my Subaru dealer confirmed this. Of course, the insurance estimate only includes replacing one tire (with a deduction for "betterment"). I feel they should be obligated to put me back in a safe car and therefore should replace all four tires (with 4 deductions for "betterment"). Is the insurance appraiser likely to give on this, or should this be added to my lawsuit?
Thank you very much!
if one tire is bad, all 4 must be replaced???...this is tricky...I can see an ins co replacing 1 tire, but it could require a court of law to force them to do that...
Or, if my collision idea above works, then a certified letter from the dealer to your ins could cause them to replace all 4 tires, and then the recovery from the other company would be the same...
if it works, I am a genius...if not, you are no worse off than you are right now...
As for the tires, yes, if one goes they all go. This is fairly common in All Wheel Drive cars because the AWD system depends on all four tires being within a very small difference in circumference. Subaru said that once 20% of the tread depth has been driven away (and it has) it's all or nothing.
After market body parts don't satisfy me. It's like being served Rabbit in the restaurant when you paid for Chicken.
Only OEM parts are acceptable in every case. Hang tough. :mad:
Once a car is 3 years old, certainly 4, to demand OEM parts would rarely be approved, unless OEM parts are similar in price to others...also, I think after 2 years, they can use used parts, i.e., a used right front fender or bumper from a vehicle that was totalled from the rear...
OR, the carrier will pay for non-OEM parts, and you can pay the difference for the OEM price, and get brand new DC fenders for your 2001 Intrepid...
Anyway, I called my insurance co., exlained what happened, and then followed up with them a few days later. By this time, an adjuster from my co. had looked at the car, and given me an estimate on damages. My insurance co had sort of a "la de da" attitude had hadn't done much in terms of contacting her insurance co, so I called myself, and had much better luck dealing directly with them. THey asked me for soem additional information and once i gave it to them, had a check for my deductible and other damage within several days.
It all depends on how your insurance co handles things. I am kind of impatient, and when my company hadn't done much on it, I took matters into my own hands. My insurance co had no problem with that. Since NJ is a no-fault state, my co handled my medical bills. And my rental car was billed directly to HER insurance too. All in all, not too difficult, but i'm not sure how long it woudl have taken had I let my co. handle in on their own.
I know being involved in an accident sucks, but from what you've stated, you and your wife came out lucky. My advice, count your blessings......
Now the insurance company is saying it isn't totaled, that it'll be fine if it's just fixed. But a fixed car isn't the same as a new car, and the accident was not our fault! There was even a policeman ON THE SCENE. I'm very worried that a fixed car that ought to be totaled will not be safe for our family of seven, with all the traveling we do to school, etc, not to mention long-distance grandparents!
At what point should we refuse to accept a mere fix? I refuse to compromise my family's safety in any way, especially when what happened was due not to any fault of ours, but a 24 year-old hotshot who wanted to prove to his buddies that he was too cool to stop at a stoplight.
What should we do? I need some advice.
Thanks,
Lisa
Congratulations on the new addition to your family.
I'm not sure I see why you think your family's safety would be compromised by having your Odyssey repaired.
tidester, host
Therefore, what I was trying to determine is: at what point is a "fixed" car less safe than a new car? In my mind, a car with a damaged frame is not a car I'm going to want to keep driving all the time for the next 5-10 years (we don't buy new cars often)...even if it has been "fixed".
Would anyone care to contribute their two cents to this particular question? I would love to hear what others have to say about this.
Thanks.
Edit for clarification: On my vehicle, the frame was bent and straightened, a bunch of components were replaced, including the radiator and A/C condensor, and the car was driven with no coolant for several miles as a result of the body shop's failure to properly attach all the radiator hoses. I understand where you're coming from, and although I believe my car is safe to drive, I don't want to deal with a finger-pointing game between the manufacturer's warranty department and the insurance company/body shop if/when one of those components breaks, or if the engine self-destructs due to being run with no coolant.
But if "push comes to shove" and you are convinced you're vehicle is less safe, but the ins co disagrees, well that's why God invented attorneys.
i'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole. ;b
'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
This is an example of many of life's situations that we should take care of ourselves, not feeling entitled to an attorney for the little and unimportant happenings we encounter. Do we no longer have the wit to handle our own problems?
I think that you'll find that your vehicle doesn't actually have a "frame". And that any "frame" damage that is being fixed is actually to part of the unibody of the vehicle. In fact, many parts on a unibody are made to collapse in an accident to make your vehicle safer. That being said, they are fortunately reproduced by your vehicle's manufacturer and offered for sale so that they may be replaced.
I also wouldn't argue that there are certain structural elements of your vehicle that are more important than others, but to put this in perspective -- your windshield is a structural element of your vehicle. The point is that cars are made to be repaired, that's why they make replacement parts; however, in many cases repairs are better and safer than replacement of parts due to the extent of welding required to replace some parts -- and the propensity for some inattentive techs to not have the innate ability for welding that a robot may.
I'm not familiar with the repairs being completed on your vehicle -- and to be honest, I'm not entirely sure you are either. But, if you have concerns surrounding these repairs you should first have a heart-to-heart with the shop completing the repairs and get their opinion (not the opinion that the insurance company gives them.)
After that, perhaps you can consult your local Department of Insurance regarding their regulations -- maybe they can offer you some options -- I hope that may help.
Now, for my take on the reality of the situation. It sucks that your vehicle requires repairs due to someone elses negligence -- I agree. The courts will likely not uphold your implied claim that every vehicle in an accident should be replaced with another of like-kind-and quality -- The planet certainly would disagree as well.
Has the safety of your vehicle been compromised by the accident and ensuing repairs? Maybe, maybe not. I'll tell you what really compromises safety though -- far more significantly than any repaired sheet metal or frame. Low tire pressure, worn brake pads, worn rotors, worn ball-joints, damaged tie-rods, cell-phones, lack of seat-belt usage, loose items in your vehicle that turn into projectiles in accidents, improperly adjusted seat-belts in child seats, things hanging from a rear-view mirror, driving into the sun, driving too fast for conditions, bald tires, eating while driving, looking at your watch while driving, looking at your children while driving, dark tinted windows, leaving the car running with the windows open, etc... My point is not so much that you don't deserve a car as safe as it was before, it is only to illustrate the myriad of things that we all do every day that are exceedingly more dangerous than a proper repair -- yet (and I'm not saying you were) some would consider giving thousands of dollars to an attorney to protect that difference -- I guess it's your choice, personally I'll just not use the phone while driving and save myself a few grand.
My boyfriend was involved in a serious accident about a month ago. His Mercedes Benz was totaled due to the complete fault of the other driver who crossed five lanes, and struck his car. As a result, he is due to receive a settlement offer from his own insurer, under Collision Coverage.
He was required to pay a $500 deductible to make his claim under his collision coverage.
He had leased the vehicle, and was not able to recover Acquisition fees, sales/use tax, document fees, first year's title,license, registration fees, CA tire fees, Purchase Option Fees, and Disposition fees from his own insurer.
My questions are threefold.
1) May he recover the $500 deductible he had to pay in addition to all the other miscellaneous leasing fees from the other guy's insurance, if he has already received a settlement package that does not include these items from his own collision coverage?
I would like to argue that this is definitely recoverable, as he would not have incurred any of these fees had it not been for the other guy's reckless and dangerous driving.
However, I'd like to know if there is some state insurance law provision (CA) that would limit his recovery for these abovementioned items from the other guy's insurance.
Secondly, he will not be signing any release or waiver of rights to sue additional parties just because he will be accepting the settlement package. His insurer does not require this.
Any insight or references to state insurance codes would be of help.
Thank you in advance,
C
But, as far as the deductible, yes, he should be getting that back.
There is one problem here, though, and that is gap insurance. The at-fault party's insurance will only pay the value of the car. Being a lease, your boyfriend owes much more than its true value. This is where gap insurance comes in. Since it is a lease, he has gap insurance. That insurance will have to cover the difference between what the at-fault party's insurance pays and what is owed on the vehicle.
This is where it may get tricky. The gap insurance MIGHT take ALL of the payout from the at-fault into account, INCLUDING the $500 deductible and subtract it from their payout. So your boyfriend may still be out $500.
As far as all the fees, etc, I'm not sure that is recoverable either. At least not through insurance. Any time a vehicle is wrecked, regardless of lease or finance, the owner of said vehicle loses out on the taxes and fees.
But maybe a professional in the field can help you out more with your questions. I could be totally off base.
'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
As such, the array of fees including S.T. & pro rating the license tabs may be covered under the U.M. unless specifically excluded. Read the policy under Exclusions in the U.M. section.
IMO, all related fees, taxes, & license should be honored because you can't replace a vehicle without paying those expenses. (If an insurance company can pay for storage of a wreck until the title is cleared they should be able to pay for the S.T. and other related charges.)
Who is paying for the injuries suffered by the occupants of the M/B?
Not really. Alot of folks go through their own insurance to get the repair done quickly rather than waiting for the opposing insurance to do their interviews, investigation, etc. Also, it puts the burden on your own insurance to go after the opposing insurance for payment. It seems to be the popular way to go. Personally, I've learned its worth it to go after the opposing insurance myself. But that's another story.
'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
To those who ARE able, they do quite well w/o lawyers...but folks often have unrealistic expectations, too, and they need to be informed about certain realities...
Example: it seems about every 15-25 posts, someone is stating that since their 2005/2006 vehicle, almost new, has suffered $7K-10K in damages, they all seem to think that the repaired car will never be as good as new, so they think that their car should be totalled...yet, this is really a disconnect from reality, as no car that cost over $25K would EVER be totalled for that amount of damage, but so many folks just have that opinion that since their car is nearly new, any damage they expect a new vehicle...
Also, my various treatises on the need for medpay, gap ins, UM and rental car ins (assuming you are in a state where they apply to you)...so many people will reveal that they have medpay to the opposing carrier, which now puts them at a severe disadvantage for settlement...not impossible, mind you, but that is info that should never be revealed, but most folks think that is the first thing to tell the other ins, and attorneys can help them pocket add'l LEGITIMATE compensation just by knowing the rules and the law...
So, we do perform a service, and for those who are only assertive with the spouse and kids, but wither at the thought of an insurance adjuster, attys can be useful...but are we necessary for survival???...no, but then, look at all the other jobs that folks earn a healthy living but are certainly not necessary for survival...auto salespeople, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, building contractors, insurance salespeople...all of those can be helpful, yet anyone with a working knowledge of that part of life can certainly do without them, regardless of how necessary they may think they are to the scheme of life...attorneys fit into life just like they do, there is a niche for us as there is one for them, for those who need them...
Another example: I used to do some real estate work and in just about every mortgage refi closing I handled for a client the title company failed to charge the appropriate (lower) title insurance reissuance fee, instead they tried to assess a new rate as though the transaction involved a purchase.
Now, should counsel be necessary in such a transaction? In theory, probably not, yet my experience suggests that there is either gross incompetence among closing agents (principally title companies here) or something more sinister. Either way, representation was a good idea in those cases.
As for the accident withoutinsurance, that would be a citation in this state but shouldn't affect responsibility for damages in the accident if the other person was at fault.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Normally you should receive some past due notices, notice of cancellation, something from your ins co, they don't just drop you w/o notice...that is something you had better check on immediately, also...