Questions About Auto Insurance and Accidents

gmccardle

Thanks for your advice Masha. I agree, FL should be pushing for more coverage. Unfortunately they are actually considering less. Motorists may not be required by law to have any coverage amazing at that sounds. It is a mess down here with many people driving expensive cars and the seeming other half un or underinsured.

Luckily, I do have my butt and my assets (no pun intended)pretty well covered by my policy. I guess if I were to cause an accident, the other party wouldn't have much to worry about.

Anyway, my UM coverage is 50/100 and is stacked. I have two vehicles. I still haven't able to wrap my little mind around exactly what that means. My ins co tells me that means in essence that doubles my coverage, but somehow I just don't get it.

As far as suing, you are right: you can't get blood from a stone and I'm sure there are probably certain assets that are protected (such as wages, vehicles, your home). I guess time will tell.

mikefm58

Unfortunately they are actually considering less. Motorists may not be required by law to have any coverage amazing at that sounds

Where have you heard that? I too am in Florida and the big news as far as car ins is that Florida most likely will become an "at fault" state in October. There's also talk of changing the motorcycle regulations. But I haven't seen anything as far lowering the minimum ins for vehicles.

imidazol97

>that Florida most likely will become an "at fault" state in October.

What does "at fault" mean?

mikefm58

What does "at fault" mean?

Any injuries are the responsibility of the person who caused the accident. Currently Florida is a "no fault" state, meaning if you're injured in a car accident, regardless of fault, your injuries are paid by your ins co. I believe this is the PIP ins part of your policy.

imidazol97

I wanted to go with no fault insurance decades ago when Michigan IIRC had done it. That way I'm not at the mercy of drivers who don't have insurance. I pay for insurance to protect my car. If someone chooses to not pay for insurance for themselves and their own car, then I don't have to worry about them hitting me and not paying.

marsha7

does not really change who you are at the mercy of, you just need to buy the proper kind of coverage...in a fault state, you simply buy U/M coverage (and medpay for doctor bills), whereas in a no-fault state, PIP is mandatory and, yes, you do go to your own insurance for coverage...but the concept is still so simple...(sigh)...even a caveman could do it...:):):):)

gmccardle

I live in Orlando, and heard something about the idea of allowing motorists to drop auto insurance on the evening news. Hopefully it was just someone's dumb suggestion. It is more likely that we will possibly become an "at fault" state.

mikefm58

That may have been the PIP coverage they were talking about when Florida goes to an "at fault" state as when that happens, PIP will no longer be required. You know how the left wing Orlando Slantinel slants the truth. And our ins rates should go down, right? Ha. My guess is that Bodily Injury will be raised.

gmccardle

I think you're right about that Mike, and right about the Orlando Slantinel as well(very clever play on words). Somehow I doubt our rates are going to go down.

marsha7

is what happened in GA in 1991, they will tell you that your rates will drop about 10% (big whoop) from what they are now...

what they did to us was to simply turn mandatory PIP into optional medpay, and since medpay is about 10% of the premium, not having it will reduce your payout by about 10%...while truthful on its face, folks did not realize what they were losing...

Today, 16 years later, there are still people who are surprised when they do not have medpay (PIP) on their insurance, and wonder why no one has paid their med bills...

While I understand that laypeople are not lawyers, I am somehwta surprised that the general populace has not caught on to this 16 years later...with all the folks who have accidents, and all the folks who know folks who have accidents, I am baffled that the general population is so ill informed...I mean, understanding auto insurance isn't rocket science, and I still believe that...no, I just can't use the Caveman example again...can I...?????

wlbrown9

Okay, I'm thinking of another slant on the Florida liability. Think OJ and his loss of the civil suit about his ex wifes death. Is there a 'homestead' exemption in Florida that protects your home against collection action in a case like this? I think I remember this in relation to the family being unable to collect the judgement from OJ since he lives in Florida. In many states I think collection of a legal judgement could include going after your assets. I may be incorrect, but it seems that is what I remember being discussed.

Disclaimer: I don't know if OJ was guilty or not...I was not there when it happened.

mikefm58

I think you're talking about keeping ones assets after declaring bankrupt. In the case of your home, some states like Florida have a very open view on how valuable your home can be and still protect it from your creditors. That's why OJ moved to Florida when he lost the civil case. He could declare bankruptcy and keep his multi-million dollar home.

richardfrost

Hi, I couldn't find where else to ask, but here it is:

A friend and I found a really nice 1967 Camaro in Latin America that we want to bring to the US. The problem with it is that is has no VIN number. Is it possible to get insurance without it? Or do they accept block numbers as well?

Thank you,
Richard

marsha7

have the most liberal exemptions for homestead equity in Bankruptcy...While Federal rules did tighten them somewhat, I think that you can keep up to $125K if you have lived there under 4 years, after 4 years, I think it is unlimited...take my thoughts with a grain of salt...I am familiar with GA rules the most...

Under the old rules (pre-Oct 17, 2005) they WERE unlimited in FL and TX, but your household goods (furniture, etc) was only $1,000...so, you could keep the million dollar mansion, but God help you if there is anything more than a bed and dresser in it...

wlbrown9

I guess you could claim that someone else owned the furniture, etc. You might need some sort of documentation to back that up.

marsha7

smell test if a big mansion had someone else's furniture in it...I would not try it if I was their atty...

stefoosh

My husband was driving on the freeway today when traffic came to an stop and the guy in front of him slammed on his brakes and my husband hit him. The guy didn't speak much english and asked my husband for $500 cash (which he didn't give him) and also said his neck hurt but not to worry about it. My husband gave him our insurance information, but he refused to share his with my husband. I'm guessing he didn't have any? My question is, what if he has no insurance? Is our insurance company liable for someone who was not legally allowed on the road?

mikefm58

Is our insurance company liable for someone who was not legally allowed on the road?

Yep. And judging from how he quickly asked for $500 and said his neck hurt, you and your ins co are in for a ride. You've got no leg to stand on when you hit someone from behind.

Some may say this is wrong, but if it were me and he failed to give me his ins info and I suspected he was an illegal immigrant, I'd withhold my ins info as well. My guess is not only was he illegally on the road but he's also illegally in the country as well.

tidester

he refused to share his with my husband

That is the moment at which your husband should have called the police. I'm sure that would have resolved any issues on the spot.

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

euphonium

The Beaner in front doesn't have insurance, thus violating the state's Financial Responsibility Law which says, "Thou shall not be involved in a crash without financial responsibility." It doesn't matter who is at fault as the operative word is INVOLVE. That being said what I would do is: Tell the guy if he pays to fix your husbands car, you won't turn him in to the state or the INS. In no way would I pay him anything. :P

oldfarmer50

"...illegally on the road but also illegally in the country..."

Very possible. My older son had a minor accident with a woman who pulled out from a side street at night without lights. Instead of asking for insurance info she asked if he were alright and then drove off. He said she had a thick accent. Since he hit her in the rear he would have been at fault. She just wanted to get out of there quickly.

mikefm58

My oldest son was also involved in a similar incident. A guy in a beat up old pickup was turning left in the middle suicide lane and quickly change his mind and pulled back in to the lane my son was in. He avoided a direct hit but clipped his mirror on the guys truck. They pulled in to a gas station and he called me. I took a look at my vehicle, some very minor damage (<$40) and no injuries. The other driver spoke no English, but his gf spoke some. I knew they were illegal Mexicans as they didn't even have a driver's license. Since my son hit him and he was a new 16 yr old driver, I didn't want the police involved either. So we all just drove away. It was a valuable lesson for him as a new driver.

jerseymom8285

The foot on which pedal issue is an important one. Can someone address this scenario: If a driver(#1) is approaching traffic say after being stopped at a red light then crossing the intersection at a speed of appx 10-15mph; they see no brake lights on the car directly in front of them (#2)and feel that the car is moving (as it is communicating that with no brake lights.), that the traffic queue is starting to move-so the driver continues until he realizes the car is in fact not moving, by then it is too late to stop. The driver slams on his brakes, but still hits the car which cause a chain reaction to two other vehicles. The driver (#1)of the car that hit car #2 did not even have air bags deploy, yet their car was totaled as the two cars in the intital collision were minivans.
The driver of the car that hit,(#1) did not see brake lights, yet the cops speak with the other drivers first as the initial driver is being treated by EMS. The cop seems to have his mind made up before even seeing the first driver in the ambulance and issues a ticket for careless driving. As car 2, that was hit insists he was completely stopped.
How is it that the blame is imediatly placed on driver #1, if there are two different secenarios to the accident, no air bags deployed and car #1 was coming from a red light at a slow speed? Is it just one persons word against anothers?
Also, cars, 3 and 4 had minimal damage indicating that they also may have started moving.
Any insght would be most appreciated. Thanks

qbrozen

well, based on my interpretation of what you have written, #1 is completely at fault. Brake lights or no. Parked cars don't have brake lights, but you don't hit those. Why? Because of depth perception. If driver #1 could not tell the car was not moving (both based on depth perception and the fact that the car was not advancing on the road), then driver #1 shouldn't be driving, IMHO.

2nd, unless this is an old and inexpensive minivan, I have a hard time believing it is totalled at just 10-15 mph. Unless it is a minivan valued at like $4k or less, I suspect the driver was travelling quite a bit faster. This would also make sense given the scenario that the driver could not stop in time after realizing they were coming upon a nonmoving vehicle.

marsha7

that there is a violation if your equipment is not working properly (no brake lights), there is still the inherent duty to be on the lookout on the road in front of you...

Another scenario...some cars, when you remove your foot from the brake pedal, will not move forward, as the friction in the transmission (or slightly slipping the clutch) can hold the car still, and no brake lights will come on...the driver in front doe NOT have any duty to be sure their brake lights are ON, just that they be working...but if he was slipping the clutch, and no lights would be on, the driver who saw no brake lights should have been looking...and, to say that it looked like the car was moving, to me, is insufficient...to me, the fault lies with the driver who rear ended the one in front of him/her...

Most often, unless someone cuts you off causing you to hit them in the rear, most rear end collisions are the fault of the driver who struck them in the rear...in GA, we call it "following too closely"...

jerseymom8285

Thanks for the replies. This is hypothetical, first off.

The car was not parked. It was on the other side of a traffic interesection. The driver (#1) was stopped at the red light and then proceeded slowly across the interesection and saw NO brake lights. The other car /cars were all engaged in driving. They were not parked just waiiting for a bus that was already moving. when D#1 approached. There is no problem with depth perception.

Thanks

qbrozen

I'm sorry, but if the driver cannot tell that the car in front of them is getting closer, there IS a problem with depth perception.

In other words, this same problem would stand there while a baseball hit them square in the eyes because the ball had no brake lights and they thought it was floating completely still in the sky.

jerseymom8285

post 2601 it also speaks to this situation.

andres3

Of course your insurance is liable damage YOU cause, with your NEGLIGENT driving, and you CAUSED the accident, doesn't matter if he should or shouldn't have been on the road.... you don't have a right to go around causing accidents. Your insurance company must pay!

Kirstie_H

No one has a "right" to cause accidents, but they are called "accidents" instead of "deliberates" for a reason.

And, just my personal opinion, I wouldn't give anyone info if they won't give me theirs. It's not the responsiblity of the two parties involved to determine who's at fault - the police decide who does/doesn't get a ticket & the insurance co's decide who pays whom.

If the person hit is more worried about having the police show up at the accident scene than he is about having his car fixed, I would feel no obligation to turn it in to my insurance company.

andres3

Auto Accident is just another word for "Auto Negligence" or Driving carelessly. 99% of accidents are caused by inattentiveness and poor decision making.

Either way.... if you rear end someone, you know your at fault, you know insurance companies will decide that way 100% of the time, with rear-end collisions, its black and white, hence, you don't need an insurance company to determine fault in those cases.

If someone wouldn't give me their info, I'd probably get the cops involved, but only if the accident wasn't my fault. If it's my fault... you better think long and hard about making a mountain out of your own self caused mole hill.

Kirstie_H

I will simply leave it here: The members with expertise in this area have posted much information that is contrary to your opinion.

If you already know it is your fault and you get a police report, you are protecting yourself against "he said, she said" discrepancies that may come up later and end up biting you.

Advice seekers are free to read all posts and make the best decision for their own situations. However, your post is not likely to be received favorably when it contains such disdain/vitriol for the at-fault party. I venture to guess that most persons involved in an accident did not intend for it to occur.

qbrozen

I did. It still doesn't change my opinion. there is no excuse for careening into the back of someone who is just sitting there. It is absolutely no different than someone driving very slowly, maybe just starting to accelerate. They have no reason to be on their brakes, and no reason to think someone is going to slam into them from behind.

andres3

If you already know it is your fault and you get a police report, you are protecting yourself against "he said, she said" discrepancies that may come up later and end up biting you.

That is the best part of your post. That is a very good reason why a police report could be beneficial.

However, intent and blame do not need to coexist. A person may not have INTENDED to cause an accident, but they certainly could be to blame or at fault 100%. Since I've never hit another vehicle where I've been to blame for it, I get angry when I get rear-ended. I know it means my insurance will go up as a not at fault accident, and I know indirectly all the people who rear-end other people are causing me to pay insurance companies more as they raise rates to cover the costs of bad drivers who cause these accidents across the board.

Plain and simple, good drivers don't rear end people. I haven't rear ended anyone at higher than 5 MPH, and when that happened, it was a combination of an old lady jaywalking, me following too closely, A Dodge with less than stellar brakes that I was driving, and the car in front of me having brake lights that didn't work. Still, I was found to be at fault as well I should have. I learned it really takes 3 or four mistakes or occurrances to cause an accident. You have to do multiple things wrong.... like... following too closely.... not paying attention, going to fast for the vehicle and its capabilities, not reacting quickly, ect.

How is it all of my recent history accidents are people rear ending me when I'm not moving!!! It must be bad drivers, and they are hiking my insurance rates, and I'm paying for it, and I don't like it one bit. Also, people should be better at avoiding accidents, even rear ended ones... like if you see someone coming in too fast... get out of the way. Sometimes you can't, however.

The only time rear ending someone could be acceptable is when they cut you off so badly that you can't possibly stop in time. This is the one I fear for it would be very hard to prove. In my mind, if this ever happens to me.... I will swerve wildly to make it look more like our sides or corners hit moreso than appear to look like you got rear ended by me when you changed lanes causing unavoidable collision.

kyfdx

Plain and simple, good drivers don't rear end people.

The only problem with this theory... is we won't know if you are a good driver until you are dead. Because it can happen to anyone.

It is easy to be smug.... until it happens to you.. If that car you rear-ended at less than 5 mph had then been pushed into the lady that was jaywalking, you might have been guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

Swerving wildly to keep from hitting someone? Good luck with that.

regards,
kyfdx
visiting host

andres3

Well, vehicular manslaughter would require that she be killed. You could argue she was so old she would have died anyway. Plenty of defenses against that, including the jay walking, the broken brake lights, and such.

Anyway.... I'm not being smug... I'm saying I made an error in judgment and driving that day. I should have followed 2 feet further away, then I would have been able to brake to 0 mph in time in order to stop. The vehicle in front of me probably left close to 10' between them and the old lady. Accidents can and do happen, but when you are driving, you should be driving to avoid them. They certainly should not be happening more than 1 or 2 times in a lifetime.

jerseymom8285

This is not an attempt in any way to make excuses for anyone who has been at fault for an accident. HOWEVER;
we are all human. Don't ever think you are too good a driver, too alert a driver, too responsible a driver for it to happen to you. It happens everyday.
If anyone saw the show on oprah a few weeks ago about family auto tragedies you know what I am talking about. The drunk driver~that was horrific and he certainly should be punsished. But the granmother~who among us can say we could not in certain situations get just as confused. We have all made mistakes. It sucks, it stinks, but it is what it is.
Dr. Robin said we need to honor our hunanity and learn, then move forward. I am hoping that maybe this will remind those of you who think you are too good to cause an accident that we are all human-no one is perfect.

wlbrown9

Either way.... if you rear end someone, you know your at fault, you know insurance companies will decide that way 100% of the time, with rear-end collisions, its black and white, hence, you don't need an insurance company to determine fault in those cases.

Probably more like 99.5% of the time on rear-end collisions. Stepson had to go talk to the TN State Troopers probably 15 years ago about his ticket points and if he would still be allowed to drive :-). I noticed there was a violation for 'sudden stopping' or something like that in the list of point values. So, I guess if you were driving along and just slammed on your brakes for no reason (so the ahole tailgating you would get the point, etc.) you 'could' possibly be held at fault. I know it would be unlikely and 'officer, I thought I saw dog/deer/child darting into the street would probably get you out of that.

Just went and checked and this is not in the list of point values on the TN Public Safety page...would probably fall under "Miscellaneous traffic violations failing to maintain control, improper control, etc., or any offense involving the operation of a motor vehicle not herein specified " now.

tidester

You could argue she was so old she would have died anyway.

You could but you would face the additional prospect of having contempt of court charges filed against you.

If that defense had a chance, Jack Kevorkian would surely have employed it.

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

marsha7

assumed that accidents (or, let's just call them collisions) are only caused by poor drivers, but that is not always the case, at least in the eyes of the law, not necessarily in the eyes of the Supreme Being...

Good drivers can still hydroplane on an unseen puddle of water, lose control and strike another vehicle...they can also suffer brake failure and simply be unable to stop...

Also, a good driver may see an accident about to occur, react fast enough to avoid the collision, but by doing so still lose control and cause a collision with another vehicle...

While good drivers make fewer mistakes than poor drivers, anyone can cause a collision...due to the variables involved, I shy away from blanket statements like good drivers do not have accidents...

marsha7

I thought you might be interested in another legal concept (yawn), called the "Last Clear Chance Doctrine"...

Let's say that you are on the main roadway, and therefore have the right of way, driving 35 mph, moderate speed...

Up ahead, say, 300 yards, a driver runs a stop sign and stalls in the middle of your lane...if you were to hit that vehicle, even tho you have the right of way, YOU would be the cause of the accident...WHY???

Because, the other vehicle is far enough ahead of you, and you are only traveling 35, and you have ample time to react and avoid a collision...in other words, you have total control on whether or not a collision will occur, so the law states that YOU have the "last clear chance" to avoid a wreck...if a wreck occurred under these circumstances, you would be cited, not the other vehicle...

gasman1

Not that it always happens, but it can really create a mess of things when insurance companies try to weasel out of paying a claim

If the "at fault" insurance company came after me with such nonsense... I'd have my attorney file an immediate lawsuit on them for emotional distress or mental anguish. The truth is that I'd like to sue them for being STUPID, but figure that wouldn't be allowed. Tactics like this give lawyers, our court system, and the US a bad name! :lemon:

andres3

Exactly, the only way for the person in front that got rear ended to take the blame is for them to admit to it. If they don't tell the absolute truth they will never NEVER EVER be held to blame for getting rear-ended! Unless there's a video.....

andres3

While it is POSSIBLE for a really good driver to cause an accident, it is extremely highly unlikely. Certainly, we are all human and a normally good driver may not have been driving good "that particular day" that the accident occurred. They may have been way too tired to be driving, or drunk for instance.... and therefore made the bad decision to be driving in the first place under less than ideal conditions. Or maybe they got a cell phone call and incorrectly thought they were able to multi-task.

But what are the chances you will have sudden brake failure when you need to stop? That's like lighting striking you. And there is the "emergency/parking" brake.

About avoiding one accident to get in another, it is possible there is no way to avoid an accident with one car or another. But... I believe a very good driver will find the way to avoid the accident if there is one available. If there is a "right/correct" move to make, it should be made. If you went left to avoid the car in the middle when you should have gone right.... well... doesn't sound like a very good driver.

And many accidents require TWO bad/inattentive drivers being in the same place at the same time. If you can just avoid being in the same spot at the same time, you will never collide!

stever

One example - pleasant day, light traffic, 45mp zone, windows down enjoying the breeze.

Bee flies into car, swat, swerve, sting, smash. Not the bee getting smashed either.

Next time I swat a wasp I'm going to put the carcass in the glovebox so I'll have a handy excuse if I happen to sneeze and rear end someone. :P

Steve, visiting host

qbrozen

Well, I totalled my first vehicle on black ice AND trying to avoid another car (my car started spinning, and i started to try to recover, but another car came up over the hill in the opposite direction, so i decided to let it go into the trees rather than hit that person).

Sometimes, it doesn't matter what you do or how good you think you are.

jipster

I've been lucky/blessed to have avoided several accidents that would have been my fault due to inattentiveness. I think Andres is just saying a good driver who is attentive and drives defensively will almost never be in an accident that is his fault... and I agree.

qbrozen

The words get a little tricky there. I've never been in an accident that was "my fault."
And I would venture a guess that a large number of drivers out there would say the same.

marsha7

I believe I see what you are saying, but I also believe you are just plain wrong...just because an accident occurs does not mean that the driver was a poor driver, and, when trying to avoid a collision, sometimes there just isn't a "best" way to handle it, esp if you really have no place to go...I simply believe your blanket statement cannot be defended with logic...

Than again, maybe I am just plain wrong...

andres3

Usually there is a best way to handle a situation, and usually it is poor driving that causes accidents.

Even a good driver could drive poorly on any certain day, sure, that is possible.

And yes, the car could malfunction and then it's the manufacturer's fault you crashed, right?? Or your mechanics!