Whoever is lobbying for the change in insurance laws (whether it is from no-fault to fault, or from contributory fault to comparative fault, or vice-versa, or from anything to anything else) will explain in detail how change will result in lower premiums and/or better protection for the public. Whoever is lobbying against the changes will claim that, if passed, the new laws will increase costs and/or decrease protection. Big surprise, eh? In my experience and in reading about changes in insurance laws, it seems to make NO difference whether the changes become law or not, insurance premiums tend to increase and/or protection is reduced. Every time! In many states, plaintiffs' lawyers and insurance companies battle every few years for new laws which will favor their particular interests. The battle itself is very expensive due to advertising for votes or public opinion. That alone tends to drive up prices for both insurance and legal services.
"...illegally on the road but also illegally in the country..."
Doesn't matter really if other driver is legally in the country, whether he has the state required minimum insurance, or even if he has a driver's license, if you are in an accident and your insurance company decides you were at fault, your company will end up paying the other driver. That other driver may get a ticket for not following those rules, but if you caused the accident, he'll get paid. If a person fails to yield to you from a side street or parking lot, or by making an unsafe lane change in front of you, there is a chance you would not be at fault for rearending him. Who will be found at fault depends on the physical evidence and witness' and drivers' statements. It could go either way. Every accident should be reported to your insurance company. It is your obligation. Read your policy.
Hahaha! Maybe the guy you hit will sue the wasp's survivors?
Really, no one cares if you were swatting a wasp or blowing your nose or any other excuse you may come up with. If the other driver is fault-free and you hit him, it is very likely YOU will be found at fault, bee or no bee.
Every time a poll or study is done it is shown that nearly all licensed drivers, when asked, think they drive better than the average driver. Now how can that be?
(Maybe if all licensed drivers were tested, they would also be found lacking in vocabulary and/or math skills too?)
Arguing about comparative fault of other parties (in a state that has true comparative negligence law) is not trying to "weasle out" of paying a claim. Usually in those cases, the insurance companies cordially work out an apportionment of fault on the car damage claims and adjust payments as needed. If a party is injured and unrepresented by a lawyer, or uninsured, then he might have to argue directly with the other guy's insurance company about the comparative fault issues. If an agreement cannot be reached, mediation or arbitration might be a good way to resolve things.
I would not be quite as skeptical as you are...at some point, we must acknowledge that insurance will cost us SOMETHING...if it is no-fault, then we have PIP...if it is fault, then we have medpay...a simple change that mandates medpay (to make it similar to PIP) would make sure that all are covered for doc bills...
Comparative negligence is not inherently evil, just that it may be difficult to determine if the victim was 0%, 10%, or 35% at fault, which is hardly a science, barely an art...
Contributory negligence is the worst...if the victim is even 1% at fault, they lose their entire right to recover from the other side, who may be 99% at fault...
GA has hybrid comparative negligence (don't you just love these words)...the at fault party must have in excess of 50% fault in order to be liable...in other words, the preponderance of the fault, more than half, must be there in order to recover...I think this is reasonable and good...so, if two parties are equally at fault, neither can recover from the other, like if both ran a stop sign and collided, they each must take care of their own cars and injuries (another reason for medpay, IMO)...
Skeptical? Who's skeptical? Not me. I'm just telling you what I've experienced and read. Insurance premiums go up for any reason they can latch onto, and sometimes for no reason at all.
I never said comparative negligence is evil. Far from it. Comparative negligence is the most fair system so far as I'm concerned. It allows a severely injured person to collect damages based on the other driver's percentage of fault, even if that other driver was less than 50% at fault. That is good. Why should any party who contributed to an accident be treated as if he was fault free? Makes no sense to me.
Let's say poor Joe had two legs and an arm amputated because of the accident. The other driver, Bob, a pompous [non-permissible content removed], is 34% at fault and was not injured except for a scratch on his elbow. Rich Bob has lots of liability coverage. Joe's a nice family guy and carried the state required insurance, which he could barely afford. Unfortunately, his dog ate the mail one day so Joe's insurance coverage lapsed due to non-payment of premium. It is determined that Joe was 32% at fault, and the city and county were each 17% at fault for poor road conditions or lack of signs or failure to trim trees or some such. I'd like an outcome where Bob and/or his insurance compensates Joe for 34% of Joe's injury. And I like it if Joe and/or his insurance has to pay for 32% of Bob's scratched elbow claim. Let's assume government pays its fair share too. What's wrong with that?
(niceness level and financial status was thrown in for dramatic effect only)
Sure, blame God! You can be pretty sure he won't show up to defend Himself.
(and what's with the link to all that mumbo-jumbo? You should have had your wasp-proof suit on or your windows up. When you were a kid did the dog eat your homework too? And besides, maybe God sent that wasp to sting you because you've been a naughty boy?)
Auto insurance is really a fraud. What the government should do is make people pay big time money into an account to be used as there own personal "at fault" fund. When they cause an accident their funds get withdrawn.
Those who don't get in "at fault" accidents are given all of their money back every 2 years (less a decent balance in case something happens soon after).
It would be like Auto Insurance Security Tax. It would have to start with a lump sump of 10K, half of which would be paid initially by the person, matched by the government 50/50. Then you pay about an average of $200/mo per driver (adjusted for driving record and vehicle driven). If you get in an at-fault accident, you should immediately be taxed at 300% what you were paying before.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Ok, an act of Mother Nature then. I just found the link searching for "car accident act of God."
I'm driving along - a tree in the hell strip falls and hits my car in such a way that it forces me into oncoming traffic. The city forester inspected all the trees the day before and found no problems. How are you going to blame me for causing the accident?
Seriously, I can imagine that I wouldn't be held at fault for the damage caused to the car that got hit in the on-coming lane, at least in some states.
When you were a kid did the dog eat your homework too?
That is a testable hypothesis through one of (a) DNA analysis of saliva residue on the remains of said homework, (b) fiber analysis of said canine's body waste or (c) carefully crafted questions regarding the homework by the teacher. None of my students has ever succeeded with this particular defense.
I took the bag of dogsh*t to school and put it on my teacher's desk with a note of explanation. Do you think she ran that fiber analysis like she was supposed to?
I never tried that again. I ended up repeating 4th grade.
The government is corrupt, but maybe less so than all Insurance company employees... Yes, definitely less so.
Social Security is a lame duck, but it's "something" and it hasn't "failed" yet. This Auto Social Security would work much better, because it's not a LONG TERM idea, its a more current, regularly doled out scheme.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The only "money" left in the Social Security Trust Fund is a bucket full of written "I O U" notes. The money taken for Social Security was never held in trust; it just went into the general fund and was spent foolishly long before it was even collected. The idea about each driver contribution $200 a month might work, except that government bureaucrats would have to be paid about $300 to administrate the program each month per driver. Typical of all government programs. Very few average drivers are going to be able to pay $5000 up front to get their new U.S. driving permits. I wonder what they'll call the new enforcement department which will be out looking for non-permitted drivers. (Maybe D.O.P.E.S.? Department Of Permit Evaders Searchers.) And if you think government paying 50% of the premium is any help at all, you need to re-think the whole thing. Where do you think government gets its money? (hint: It is wrangled from the nation's citizens by direct or indirect taxes. Government produces nothing. The only money it has is taken from its subjects.
That's the term for those narrow patches of grass between the sidewalk and street in many urban/suburban areas. Too small to efficiently water or landscape and they are hell to mow. (link)
Having the gov't force us to pay "big time money" into a fund is the absolute WORST idea anyone could think of...
First, most folks could not afford the Big Time $$$ to put into the fund...second, what is Big Time $$$, $1,000 or $10,000 per year???...what happens when the damages are $50K PD and $150K BI???
Insurance companies take small premiums and spread the risk and insure us with Big $$$, something we could never do ourselves...
Another reason the idea is worthless...if the uninsured cannot pay the meager premiums now, what makes you think they will pay the Big Time $$$ later???
While everyone is entitled to an opinion, please keep this topic rational and sane and keep the gov't out of it, at least directly...indirectly, they mandate the purchase of insurance, but the free market/private enterprise handles the rest of it...
Please, no more gov't, we have enough socialism as it is...
I thought insurance was about the most heavily regulated industry out there. The last time I had a complaint about a premium refund I called the state division of insurance ("the government") and got it squared away in short order. It's not like the consumer has a lot of ability to negotiate with those guys.
Are you going to take my bee sting defense and get me off the hook, btw?
...take my bee sting defense and get me off the hook, btw?
I don't know, Steve. Caution may be advised here. No one has declared you a person of interest yet but rumors are that apicide charges may be pending ...
If there is a bee in your car don't go crazy trying to swat it and end up running into another car. Just ignore it. It will probably get out of the car on its own. If your windows are up when you discover the bee, roll one down an inch and turn your fresh air ventilation or fresh air A/C or heat on full blast. The increased air pressure will help it find and escape out of the cracked open window. And if it stings you, cry if you must, but don't slam into something. That would be a dumb move.
If you are allergic to bee stings you should be even MORE inclined to remain calm if there is a bee with you in the car. If you go swatting around it is more likely to sting you. Apiphobic? Is that afraid of bees? Guess that means you are a little crazy in the head. Maybe you could get over it on your own or get therapy to help. I don't think an arbitrator, jury or judge would find you not responsible if you smash into someone because you were flailing away at a bee while driving. As an arbitrator I would not let you off and if I was the flailer I would not expect to get off either.
Bee flies in - immediately stings you just below your left eye, right on the eyelid. No allergies. Where are you going to draw the line Joe? :shades: I think "blameless" accidents can happen.
That depends on the totality of the circumstances and what a reasonably prudent person would have or should have done. It also depends on the laws of the state. More details please?
Just because a state has no-fault insurance laws does not mean no one was at fault for the accident! (You do understand that, right?)
One of the problems with no-fault insurance is that it does not do much to encourage bad drivers to become better drivers. It also often will not allow full monetary compensation to the victims of bad drivers. With no-fault, good drivers rates go up because of accidents caused by bad drivers. Bad drivers rates are a relative bargain because their insurance does not have to pay the full extent of the damages they cause. In effect, good and careful driving is penalized and bad and careless driving is subsidized. And when anything is subsidized, you'll end up with more of it. But, if a thing is penalized, you'll end up with less of it. Is that really what any of us want?
Or, at least have had your beekeepers safty gear on.
Okay, so how about some crazy drops a cinder block from an overpass which crashes through your windshield breaking your wrists and knees - then your car strikes another from behind. Are you still at fault? Or should you have donned your magic rock deflector?
After the sting, crash! Who gets the ticket? Not the bee.
After slipping on black ice, crash! Who gets the ticket? Not the slick pavement.
sooo... are you saying that a ticket dictates fault?
what happens, then, when no tickets are issued?
i received no ticket for my black ice incident. And when the cop came, he slipped and fell on the ice. He blamed the ice for that. He didn't write it a ticket, though, no.
'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
My beautiful Civic was parked at my house today when I heard a crunching sound outside of my window. A 1971 Dodge Tioga RV had successfully mangled both drivers side doors, pulled my front fender completely off, bent the front axle, and tore enough into the hoses and engine to leave a pool of fluids under the car. No big deal right? The woman driving the car is:
1) Homeless 2) Uninsured 3) Did not have a drivers license 4) Has no phone number 5) Is driving and unregistered vehicle 6) Crazy and tried to bribe me to not call the cops by giving me a painting of kelp that she had made.
So I got a police report and filed the claim with Geico, but will have to pay towing and a large deductible.
Any ideas or experiences with getting the money for my deductible from someone like I described above?
Hi everyone - I'd appreciate any thoughts on my situation. I have (had?) a 1999 Toyota Camry with 108,000 miles. I got into an accident last week. The front left area of car near the headlights is smushed. Frame is not damaged, airbags did not deploy, but it's definitely not just a scratch, so I'm trying to figure out the best option for moving ahead.
The Toyota dealership appraised repairs between $2500-3000 (and I have heard that this dealership's autobody shop makes a killing in profits so perhaps I should take it to another shop for a more accurate appraisal?).
KBB private party value is around $4300 before the accident (amount quoted was for "fair" condition as the handbrake and check engine lights came on and we were told that it would cost $750 to fix problems, but the problems were not critical, handbrake works great, and the engine thing had to do with the oxygen sensor but it was nothing dangerous -- we've been driving with those lights on for almost a year now with no problems, and I also just put in 4 brand new tires last year.
I don't know whether to just go ahead and fix it and have the time to wait for a good deal on a new mini-van down the road OR probably get some pitiful price for a trade-in as-is at the dealership ($1000?) and get a 2007 Town and Country Touring right now.
What option makes the most sense?
Everything will come out of our pockets since we elected not to carry collision insurance for our older model car, and just carried full coverage to take care of the other car.
Sorry for the long post. Just swimming in information and numbers and the brain is getting a bit overloaded. I'm need to make a decision before our one month car rental runs out in three weeks and we have to waste more money by renting for another month.
I guess it depends. What do you need out of your car? Do you use it basically just to get to work and the store? If so get estimates from several independent shops and fix it up only enough to make it road worthy.
If, on the other hand, you have to use it FOR work and you have to drive clients in it I would fix it up so that it looks goods and drives good. I kind of doubt that an 8 year old car would impress anyone, but, who knows.
I had a similar situation when my two young lads had fender benders in my Oldsmobile years ago. It was an older car with 100K miles. I just needed transportation so I took it to the guy down the street and he put some cheap junkyard parts on it and got it to pass inspection. Cost: $300-400. To fix it properly at a dealer would have cost thousands.
The car lasted several more years and I was happy.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I'm with oldfarmer. Get it fixed cheaply and keep driving it. Its a Camry with 108K miles. Its still got lots of life in it.
the other choice, if I really wanted a new vehicle, would be to get it fixed right ... and I mean all of the problems. And sell it privately. Again, its a fairly low-mileage Camry. It will fetch quite a bit of money, even with minor accident damage.
'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
The only idea I have for you is that you should have had collision deductible waiver for under or uninsured incidents. Hindsight is 20/20, but by far, by an exponential amount close to infinity, the only chance your ever going to have a claim on your own insurance company using your own deductibles will be (if you are a good driver) when an underinsured or uninsured hits you. I bet all my money on that theory, and it's paid off big time!
For about $20 to $25 a year, in just 5 years I've gotten in (including GF/now wife) not one, but two uninsured claims (because the worst drivers don't have insurance and CA govt sucks at enforcing its requirement!). Unfortunately the first time my insurance company (Bristol West) and yes, underwritten by Coast National Insurance have a policy of denying every single claim made by its customers. Yes, I'm calling the two companies out by name! So I made the mistake of getting Bristol West/Coast National Insurance/SCAMMERS/ agent was Eastwood. Anyway, of course they denied the claim even though we had the guys license plate and it was clearly an uninsured incident. Needless to say I'm not with any of those insurance companies anymore. The CA dept. of Insurance exists only to APPEAR to do something, when in fact they are powerless. The only thing that has power is money, and I didn't have the money to hire a good lawyer. I settled for having my unisured coverage "costs" for the last policy period refunded. That was only a bit more than enough to cover the early cancellation (excessive) fees they have.
The issue was I asked for UMBI AND UMPD (unisured motorist PROPERTY DAMAGE), the UMPD is the important one. However, on the policy they made the "clerical error" of only putting on the UMBI (Bodily Injury - almost never used and never happens in claims). I had a fax (with confirmation) proving I had written what I wanted correctly, and they admitted that some kind of processing error was made, but denied my claim regardless.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
...tried to bribe me to not call the cops by giving me a painting of kelp that she had made
Not to make light of your situation, but kelp in real life is not all that attractive, making one wonder why anyone would feel inspired to re-create it on canvas.
In any case, I think you have close to a zero percent chance of recovering anything from this person, largely because there appears not to be anything to recover. You could hire a lawyer and pay fees, and even win the court case. You still can't get blood from an onion.
Unfortunately, you'll probably have to use your uninsured motorist coverage to take care of the damage to your vehicle.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Where do you get the idea that Premiums are meager?
I don't know of any meager premiums, even with the lowest cost insurance company (by a wide margin) Mercury Insurance. I pay them about 2K a year for 2 cars and two people, plus we have ALL OF THE discounts available basically, including good driver, multiple cars, mult. policies (home insurance) and anti-theft devices.
We have no accidents (at fault) on our records (but do have a couple not at fault accidents (low cost except for one). Until this year, I didn't even have a single citation on there.
Either way, I'd estimate in the 13 years of driving since I was 16, Insurance companies have received about 1K a year just for me driving. So thats about 13,000 dollars!!! That's not meager in any way, shape, or form.
Total amount my own insurance companies have had to rightfully pay out due to my driving (where it was my insurance company that was liable to pay because of me.....don't include uninsured where they can sue and recover there money) $4,000. That means they've received over 13K and earned interest over 13 years! And only had to pay out about $4,000! That is $325% profit on the 4,000 dollars! What an industry!
Sounds like good drivers getting punished to me. Anyone wanna do the math on how much I'd have saved up if I put in $1,000 annually in the S&P 500 since 1994?
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
You pay premiums to protect against catastrophic loss. You've been lucky and have not caused accidental damages to other people. Congrats! Be happy! You pay because there is a chance you might need the insurance. Insurance is not designed to be an investment device.
You pay premiums to protect against catastrophic loss.
Amen to that!
My wife once made the innocent comment about why we were paying so much for insurance.
Five weeks after my step son turned 16, he rolled his car and sent his sister to the hospital for 4 days. Thankfully, nobody suffered any serious injuries. The car was totalled, and the final cost of the claim (property and medical) was, I believe, somewhere north of $35K.
We never saw a bill. From anybody.
Wife no longer complains about the cost of our insurance premiums.
Comments
The at fault driver: "So which one are you?"
Whoever is lobbying against the changes will claim that, if passed, the new laws will increase costs and/or decrease protection. Big surprise, eh?
In my experience and in reading about changes in insurance laws, it seems to make NO difference whether the changes become law or not, insurance premiums tend to increase and/or protection is reduced. Every time!
In many states, plaintiffs' lawyers and insurance companies battle every few years for new laws which will favor their particular interests. The battle itself is very expensive due to advertising for votes or public opinion. That alone tends to drive up prices for both insurance and legal services.
Doesn't matter really if other driver is legally in the country, whether he has the state required minimum insurance, or even if he has a driver's license, if you are in an accident and your insurance company decides you were at fault, your company will end up paying the other driver. That other driver may get a ticket for not following those rules, but if you caused the accident, he'll get paid.
If a person fails to yield to you from a side street or parking lot, or by making an unsafe lane change in front of you, there is a chance you would not be at fault for rearending him. Who will be found at fault depends on the physical evidence and witness' and drivers' statements. It could go either way.
Every accident should be reported to your insurance company. It is your obligation. Read your policy.
Hahaha! Maybe the guy you hit will sue the wasp's survivors?
Really, no one cares if you were swatting a wasp or blowing your nose or any other excuse you may come up with. If the other driver is fault-free and you hit him, it is very likely YOU will be found at fault, bee or no bee.
Now how can that be?
(Maybe if all licensed drivers were tested, they would also be found lacking in vocabulary and/or math skills too?)
Usually in those cases, the insurance companies cordially work out an apportionment of fault on the car damage claims and adjust payments as needed. If a party is injured and unrepresented by a lawyer, or uninsured, then he might have to argue directly with the other guy's insurance company about the comparative fault issues.
If an agreement cannot be reached, mediation or arbitration might be a good way to resolve things.
Comparative negligence is not inherently evil, just that it may be difficult to determine if the victim was 0%, 10%, or 35% at fault, which is hardly a science, barely an art...
Contributory negligence is the worst...if the victim is even 1% at fault, they lose their entire right to recover from the other side, who may be 99% at fault...
GA has hybrid comparative negligence (don't you just love these words)...the at fault party must have in excess of 50% fault in order to be liable...in other words, the preponderance of the fault, more than half, must be there in order to recover...I think this is reasonable and good...so, if two parties are equally at fault, neither can recover from the other, like if both ran a stop sign and collided, they each must take care of their own cars and injuries (another reason for medpay, IMO)...
I never said comparative negligence is evil. Far from it. Comparative negligence is the most fair system so far as I'm concerned. It allows a severely injured person to collect damages based on the other driver's percentage of fault, even if that other driver was less than 50% at fault. That is good. Why should any party who contributed to an accident be treated as if he was fault free? Makes no sense to me.
Let's say poor Joe had two legs and an arm amputated because of the accident. The other driver, Bob, a pompous [non-permissible content removed], is 34% at fault and was not injured except for a scratch on his elbow. Rich Bob has lots of liability coverage. Joe's a nice family guy and carried the state required insurance, which he could barely afford. Unfortunately, his dog ate the mail one day so Joe's insurance coverage lapsed due to non-payment of premium. It is determined that Joe was 32% at fault, and the city and county were each 17% at fault for poor road conditions or lack of signs or failure to trim trees or some such.
I'd like an outcome where Bob and/or his insurance compensates Joe for 34% of Joe's injury. And I like it if Joe and/or his insurance has to pay for 32% of Bob's scratched elbow claim. Let's assume government pays its fair share too.
What's wrong with that?
(niceness level and financial status was thrown in for dramatic effect only)
Fly? No fly?
(and what's with the link to all that mumbo-jumbo? You should have had your wasp-proof suit on or your windows up. When you were a kid did the dog eat your homework too? And besides, maybe God sent that wasp to sting you because you've been a naughty boy?)
Those who don't get in "at fault" accidents are given all of their money back every 2 years (less a decent balance in case something happens soon after).
It would be like Auto Insurance Security Tax. It would have to start with a lump sump of 10K, half of which would be paid initially by the person, matched by the government 50/50. Then you pay about an average of $200/mo per driver (adjusted for driving record and vehicle driven). If you get in an at-fault accident, you should immediately be taxed at 300% what you were paying before.
I'm driving along - a tree in the hell strip falls and hits my car in such a way that it forces me into oncoming traffic. The city forester inspected all the trees the day before and found no problems. How are you going to blame me for causing the accident?
Steve, just a visiting host in here
And we know this would work because Social Security is so successful, right?
Got a problem? Sure, let's have Government fix it. Cuz they are so good at that, right?
So you think insurance is corrupt and government is not? Hahahaha!
What would Georgia do Bob?
That is a testable hypothesis through one of (a) DNA analysis of saliva residue on the remains of said homework, (b) fiber analysis of said canine's body waste or (c) carefully crafted questions regarding the homework by the teacher. None of my students has ever succeeded with this particular defense.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
But it DON'T work!
I took the bag of dogsh*t to school and put it on my teacher's desk with a note of explanation. Do you think she ran that fiber analysis like she was supposed to?
I never tried that again.
I ended up repeating 4th grade.
Social Security is a lame duck, but it's "something" and it hasn't "failed" yet. This Auto Social Security would work much better, because it's not a LONG TERM idea, its a more current, regularly doled out scheme.
The idea about each driver contribution $200 a month might work, except that government bureaucrats would have to be paid about $300 to administrate the program each month per driver. Typical of all government programs. Very few average drivers are going to be able to pay $5000 up front to get their new U.S. driving permits. I wonder what they'll call the new enforcement department which will be out looking for non-permitted drivers. (Maybe D.O.P.E.S.? Department Of Permit Evaders Searchers.)
And if you think government paying 50% of the premium is any help at all, you need to re-think the whole thing. Where do you think government gets its money? (hint: It is wrangled from the nation's citizens by direct or indirect taxes. Government produces nothing. The only money it has is taken from its subjects.
When were you non renewed or canceled for non pay? :P
First, most folks could not afford the Big Time $$$ to put into the fund...second, what is Big Time $$$, $1,000 or $10,000 per year???...what happens when the damages are $50K PD and $150K BI???
Insurance companies take small premiums and spread the risk and insure us with Big $$$, something we could never do ourselves...
Another reason the idea is worthless...if the uninsured cannot pay the meager premiums now, what makes you think they will pay the Big Time $$$ later???
While everyone is entitled to an opinion, please keep this topic rational and sane and keep the gov't out of it, at least directly...indirectly, they mandate the purchase of insurance, but the free market/private enterprise handles the rest of it...
Please, no more gov't, we have enough socialism as it is...
Are you going to take my bee sting defense and get me off the hook, btw?
Steve, still visiting....
I don't know, Steve. Caution may be advised here. No one has declared you a person of interest yet but rumors are that apicide charges may be pending ...
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
And if it stings you, cry if you must, but don't slam into something. That would be a dumb move.
That is easier said than done if you are apiphobic or, worse still, allergic to bee stings in which case you are incapacitated by a sting.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Apiphobic? Is that afraid of bees? Guess that means you are a little crazy in the head. Maybe you could get over it on your own or get therapy to help.
I don't think an arbitrator, jury or judge would find you not responsible if you smash into someone because you were flailing away at a bee while driving. As an arbitrator I would not let you off and if I was the flailer I would not expect to get off either.
After slipping on black ice, crash! Who gets the ticket?
Not the slick pavement.
In every crash, there is fault.
It also depends on the laws of the state.
More details please?
Steve, visiting host who'll go back to the weeds now...
Naturally! Otherwise someone surely would have come up with the notion of no fault insurance by now! :P
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Just because a state has no-fault insurance laws does not mean no one was at fault for the accident! (You do understand that, right?)
One of the problems with no-fault insurance is that it does not do much to encourage bad drivers to become better drivers. It also often will not allow full monetary compensation to the victims of bad drivers.
With no-fault, good drivers rates go up because of accidents caused by bad drivers. Bad drivers rates are a relative bargain because their insurance does not have to pay the full extent of the damages they cause.
In effect, good and careful driving is penalized and bad and careless driving is subsidized. And when anything is subsidized, you'll end up with more of it. But, if a thing is penalized, you'll end up with less of it.
Is that really what any of us want?
I'm trying real hard not to take offense at that. :mad:
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Now I think you did and do understand. Am I right?
No offense intended. As always.
You should have had your windows rolled up. Or, at least have had your beekeepers safty gear on. :lemon:
Okay, so how about some crazy drops a cinder block from an overpass which crashes through your windshield breaking your wrists and knees - then your car strikes another from behind. Are you still at fault? Or should you have donned your magic rock deflector?
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
After slipping on black ice, crash! Who gets the ticket?
Not the slick pavement.
sooo... are you saying that a ticket dictates fault?
what happens, then, when no tickets are issued?
i received no ticket for my black ice incident. And when the cop came, he slipped and fell on the ice. He blamed the ice for that. He didn't write it a ticket, though, no.
'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
1) Homeless
2) Uninsured
3) Did not have a drivers license
4) Has no phone number
5) Is driving and unregistered vehicle
6) Crazy and tried to bribe me to not call the cops by giving me a painting of kelp that she had made.
So I got a police report and filed the claim with Geico, but will have to pay towing and a large deductible.
Any ideas or experiences with getting the money for my deductible from someone like I described above?
Thanks!!!
The Toyota dealership appraised repairs between $2500-3000 (and I have heard that this dealership's autobody shop makes a killing in profits so perhaps I should take it to another shop for a more accurate appraisal?).
KBB private party value is around $4300 before the accident (amount quoted was for "fair" condition as the handbrake and check engine lights came on and we were told that it would cost $750 to fix problems, but the problems were not critical, handbrake works great, and the engine thing had to do with the oxygen sensor but it was nothing dangerous -- we've been driving with those lights on for almost a year now with no problems, and I also just put in 4 brand new tires last year.
I don't know whether to just go ahead and fix it and have the time to wait for a good deal on a new mini-van down the road OR probably get some pitiful price for a trade-in as-is at the dealership ($1000?) and get a 2007 Town and Country Touring right now.
What option makes the most sense?
Everything will come out of our pockets since we elected not to carry collision insurance for our older model car, and just carried full coverage to take care of the other car.
Sorry for the long post. Just swimming in information and numbers and the brain is getting a bit overloaded. I'm need to make a decision before our one month car rental runs out in three weeks and we have to waste more money by renting for another month.
Thanks for any advice/thoughts!
I guess it depends. What do you need out of your car? Do you use it basically just to get to work and the store? If so get estimates from several independent shops and fix it up only enough to make it road worthy.
If, on the other hand, you have to use it FOR work and you have to drive clients in it I would fix it up so that it looks goods and drives good. I kind of doubt that an 8 year old car would impress anyone, but, who knows.
I had a similar situation when my two young lads had fender benders in my Oldsmobile years ago. It was an older car with 100K miles. I just needed transportation so I took it to the guy down the street and he put some cheap junkyard parts on it and got it to pass inspection. Cost: $300-400. To fix it properly at a dealer would have cost thousands.
The car lasted several more years and I was happy.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
the other choice, if I really wanted a new vehicle, would be to get it fixed right ... and I mean all of the problems. And sell it privately. Again, its a fairly low-mileage Camry. It will fetch quite a bit of money, even with minor accident damage.
'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
For about $20 to $25 a year, in just 5 years I've gotten in (including GF/now wife) not one, but two uninsured claims (because the worst drivers don't have insurance and CA govt sucks at enforcing its requirement!). Unfortunately the first time my insurance company (Bristol West) and yes, underwritten by Coast National Insurance have a policy of denying every single claim made by its customers. Yes, I'm calling the two companies out by name! So I made the mistake of getting Bristol West/Coast National Insurance/SCAMMERS/ agent was Eastwood. Anyway, of course they denied the claim even though we had the guys license plate and it was clearly an uninsured incident. Needless to say I'm not with any of those insurance companies anymore. The CA dept. of Insurance exists only to APPEAR to do something, when in fact they are powerless. The only thing that has power is money, and I didn't have the money to hire a good lawyer. I settled for having my unisured coverage "costs" for the last policy period refunded. That was only a bit more than enough to cover the early cancellation (excessive) fees they have.
The issue was I asked for UMBI AND UMPD (unisured motorist PROPERTY DAMAGE), the UMPD is the important one. However, on the policy they made the "clerical error" of only putting on the UMBI (Bodily Injury - almost never used and never happens in claims). I had a fax (with confirmation) proving I had written what I wanted correctly, and they admitted that some kind of processing error was made, but denied my claim regardless.
Not to make light of your situation, but kelp in real life is not all that attractive, making one wonder why anyone would feel inspired to re-create it on canvas.
In any case, I think you have close to a zero percent chance of recovering anything from this person, largely because there appears not to be anything to recover. You could hire a lawyer and pay fees, and even win the court case. You still can't get blood from an onion.
Unfortunately, you'll probably have to use your uninsured motorist coverage to take care of the damage to your vehicle.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
I don't know of any meager premiums, even with the lowest cost insurance company (by a wide margin) Mercury Insurance. I pay them about 2K a year for 2 cars and two people, plus we have ALL OF THE discounts available basically, including good driver, multiple cars, mult. policies (home insurance) and anti-theft devices.
We have no accidents (at fault) on our records (but do have a couple not at fault accidents (low cost except for one). Until this year, I didn't even have a single citation on there.
Either way, I'd estimate in the 13 years of driving since I was 16, Insurance companies have received about 1K a year just for me driving. So thats about 13,000 dollars!!! That's not meager in any way, shape, or form.
Total amount my own insurance companies have had to rightfully pay out due to my driving (where it was my insurance company that was liable to pay because of me.....don't include uninsured where they can sue and recover there money) $4,000. That means they've received over 13K and earned interest over 13 years! And only had to pay out about $4,000! That is $325% profit on the 4,000 dollars! What an industry!
Sounds like good drivers getting punished to me. Anyone wanna do the math on how much I'd have saved up if I put in $1,000 annually in the S&P 500 since 1994?
You pay because there is a chance you might need the insurance. Insurance is not designed to be an investment device.
Amen to that!
My wife once made the innocent comment about why we were paying so much for insurance.
Five weeks after my step son turned 16, he rolled his car and sent his sister to the hospital for 4 days. Thankfully, nobody suffered any serious injuries. The car was totalled, and the final cost of the claim (property and medical) was, I believe, somewhere north of $35K.
We never saw a bill. From anybody.
Wife no longer complains about the cost of our insurance premiums.