Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
But I am quite sure that you cannot accept a settlement from the ins and then sue on the portion that you accepted that settlement on, simply bevause when you settle a given part, you must sign a release waiving your right to sue, so that, in essence, you agree to accept XXX amount as adequate compensation...
Now, let's say that the insurance on a BI claim is only $25K...but you have $20K in medical bills and you will settle for $50K...but the ins can only offer $25K, which are policy limits...since you have not settled, you can obviously file suit, but even if a jury awards you $75K, the insurance will only pay up to policy limits of, in this example, $25K, the individual is liable for the rest...
Which creates a problem for the winner...if the driver was over 18, all he has to do is file bankruptcy (not hard for someone with no assets and a $50K lawsuit debt) and walk away from the debt...now, if the driver is under 18, parents may ultimately be responsible...
A small portion of my bankruptcy practice is comprised of those folks between 18 and 30, no assets except clean underwear and a cell phone, getting blasted with a judgment of $10K-30K for auto injury damages...a simple Chapter 7 and the damage award goes away...
Which is also why when an accident client says Sue the SOB, I first look at what the other guy is or what he has...if he is 24 years old, driving a 1994 Honda Civic or a 1972 F150, it is almost guaranteed he has no assets...and no attorney will knowingly sue someone, trying to recover $$$ for the client, when they show having no assets at all, in other words, suing for principle is a waste of time...
Actually, if they want to sue for principle, I would consider giving them their day in court, but not on a contingency fee, they must pay up front, in full, no refunds except a smile from me...when they have to cough up thousands of $$$, it is AMAZING how principle no longer has any meaning for them...
In essence, they have principles as long as I front the money to pay for them...
First rule of dealing with people: when they say it's not the money, it is the principle of the thing, IT'S THE MONEY, as long as you offer to pay for their high-falutin' principles...
When the first guy finally offers to pay me up front, then I will believe it is the principle...until then NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But we still need details from tidester, since the story so far makes no sense...or, unless his state law actually allows you to accept a settlement and then file a suit, but I would be surprised...
We await tidester's answer with bated breath..........at least, I do.....
You need to understand two things. First, I am not a lawyer and, second, I am not an insurance expert!
What I do know is that there is a real lawsuit against my son. Regarding insurance payouts to the other driver, I only have "hearsay" knowledge that he has been paid off but it is my understanding that he collected for property damage (i.e., this is information from my son based on what his insurance agent told him). The subpoenas refer to injuries.
And, yes, the insurance company does have their lawyers working on the case.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
That brings up an interesting point. How can a parent shield themself from a potential lawsuit, if for example, their 19 year old college son is in a car accident and is at fault? Assume the vehicle is titled in the sons name but the parents pay for repairs, maintenance, and insurance. Also, the son is at college, but he "officially" lives at home. Could the parent still be sued if the son is at fault in an accident? Does anything change when the son turns 21?
Therefore, Insurance companies have no business offering settlements on behalf of an at-fault driver to anyone. When someone offers something to somebody they don't owe and that person accepts in whole or in part, we usually call that a gift, not payment for an obligation. Pretty stupid of insurers to do that, but that doesn't stop them, and the "gift" won't make the "obligation" owned by the at-fault party go away.
Insurers often go around their policyholder and deal directly with the other party to whom they have NO obligation. They do this because it saves them millions of dollars each year and nobody ever questions them about it. The real problem is that when the insurer starts negotiating with the damaged party and begins flexing its muscle, it is doing so in ITS OWN BEST INTEREST, not the best interest of the policyholder who, like Tidewaters son, wants this to just go away. (In court cases I've seen insurers asked repeatedly if they were acting as an agent for the at-fault party when they negotiate with and cut a check in the name of a claimant, and I have yet to see them answer "yes".)
A more frequent scenario, and one many people can identify with, is this: Insurers will often demand repairs to claimant's cars be made at cut-rate body shops they have agreements with, using aftermarket parts and other shoddy practices. The car gets butchered. Does this put the claimant back to whole? Of course not, and leaves a loss still owed by the at-fault driver regardless of what the insurer paid and whether or not they agree that the repairs are shoddy.
It is customary n many states that claimants will accept checks and endorse them "accepted as partial payment for loss dated (date)." They are then free to pursue the negligent party without refusing the money that has been offered on the negligent party's behalf.
The bottom line is that claimants have the right to be made whole. If the insurer of the at-fault driver doesn't want to pay enough to make that happen it will not relieve the financial obligation incurred by the negligent acts of a driver that caused the damage.
The claimant may demand the balance from his own insurance company. Or, he may make demand directly from party that hit him. Ultimately, a claimant is under no obligation to deal with the at-fault party's insurer. He doesn't even have to let them see his damaged car if he doesn't want to, much less direct repairs that won't properly fix it back to its preloss condition.
If a claimant chooses to do so, he may
(1) have the car fixed, pay the bill and present it with a demand for payment to the party that caused the damage, adding on for any other losses he's experienced bypassing insurers altogether.
(2) turn the claim in to his own insurer
(3) accept partial payment from the at-fault party's insurer, and part from his own insurer or from the at-fault party.
That's the three most obvious scenarios, but not all of them. In some cases the claimant may even collect for the entire loss from both his own insurer and the at-fault driver, provided he doesn't profit from his own insurer.
David Williams
Read: Beware! 9 Lies Insurance Adjusters Might Tell You
So a person such as you describe there does not need to be concerned about future wages being taken to pay the judgement? Bankruptcy makes that risk go away?
Turning in front of her was the police anticipated and so was the witness. My insurance company also said I might be at fault. Thats why I need an expert to help.
She was moving very fast thats why she hit me. From my side I can only see as far as about 60 ~ 100 yards (I don't have the exact measurement) on the coming lane.
-mike
Mikefm...as always, there is never one simple answer from a lawyer, but that is always because it depends on the circumstances and the state laws where you live...
Normally, the age of majority is 18...under 18, parents may be held responsible for any damges over policy limits simply because the child is a minor...once they reach 18, even if they are on parents policy, I believe that the 18 year old would be responsible for any judgment over policy limits...
The simple solution, IMO, is what I always preach, and you may be tired of hearing it...either carry decent liability limits, like 100K/300K, which will cover you for most wrecks, or spend $200 yearly and get a $1 million umbrella policy, which will cover you for everything, unless you rearend a van full of nuns or wheelchair-bound children and kill five of them...then even a million may not be enough...
This is the whole reason for insurance, to insure against risk...and also why when folks only carry a legal minimum of, say, 25K/50K, I think that alone is almost criminal, as I think minimums should be either 50K/100K or 100K/300K...
25K is certainly enough until you have a serious wreck, then everyone wishes they had more...I have a client that shattered her fibula (small lower leg bone) and the meds have surpassed $18K...the liability policy is only 25K/50K, and she does not have U/M or medpay...she has missed 2 months of work, and just how much do you think she will put in her pocket after all that pain and anguish???...if it was YOUR daughter, you would be screaming how could someone have such low limits of liability of insurance???...oddly enough, she carried 100K liability on her vehicle, but no U/M or medpay, so her liability does not help her, only the other party if she caused the wreck...
At the risk of sounding like an idiot, most people do not need heavy duty insurance limits until they get involved in an accident that needs heavy duty insurance limits...then they wish they spent the lousy few dollars for the insurance...don't tell me how much it costs, because I will tell you all the many thousands of dollars she is entitled to that she will never see...the person who caused the wreck is 19 years old...
Do you really think I am going to file suit, knowing that a judgment can be blown away by a bankruptcy lawyer like myself???
If she only had 25K or 50K in medpay, at least the 25K for liability would have given her a healthy chunk for her injuries...
Maybe I am just an elitist, but when I see this over and over again, and I know the simple solution was just a little more expense in the insurance premium (compared to the thousands it would have paid out that she certainly DESERVED for her serious injuries), all I can say is that people need to wake up and stop being so damn stupid...
Anytime someone says to me "well, I only bought a little insurance because I never imagined I would be involved in a SERIOUS wreck" all I can do is shake my head and hope that this person never goes to vote on Election Day, because they are too stupid to vote...
Does anyone ACTUALLY think that all accidents are simple $500 fender benders???...don't they see when traffic stops on the interstate because everyone is rubbernecking the wreck where three of the passengers are taken by LifeFlight to trauma centers, do they really think they are immune to that kind of wreck???...are they that dumb to think that they will only collide with a Mini-Cooper instead of an out-of-control concrete truck or a tractor trailer where the driver fell asleep at the wheel???...just how how far can we dumb down people???
It just annoys me because the cost of insurance as a preventive measure is thousands, many thousands, less than what the wreck can cost you, injuries, lost wages and all...
And then we have insurance commercials from Safe Auto, stating, "if you just need the minimum insurance to keep your car on the road, call us now"...and these are the folks who complain the worst when the guy who hits them also has minimum limits with Safe Auto...one client a few years ago, who suffered some relatively serous injuries, said to me that it was a crime that all the at-fault party has was minimum limits of 25K...when I asked him how much HE carried, he sheepishly answered that he had the same amount...DUMB...
Bedtime...
Its so simple to say you are crossing you are at fault. You should bite the consequences. Every driver know that.
My whole life believe that if there is no car coming, I can turn. Now people educate me, I should wait forever at the cross road. I only need justice in this case.
If this were true, I should never drive again!
As I mentioned, the turn was very sharp and I had to be very careful not to look elsewhere when I was at the middle of the turn when she hit me. The lane I was about to turn to was narrow and there was a car waiting to cross the road at my left.
I could not see very far because her lane was a slope up and then flat. Weather was fine and its in the morning before 10am. There was no way that I could not see her when I turned.
If you are an expert here, please help me.
You've had about 1/2 dozen folk listen to your explanation of what happened, and all of these impartial folks including myself (as well as the police and a witness), believe it is your fault. Your own words indicate that you couldn't see very far because the road was sloped up. Your defense is predicated on the fact that because you didn't see here, she must have been speeding. I believe whether she was speeding or not is immaterial, and there is no proof of that anyhow.
Now of course you can continue to believe it is not your fault, and undoubtedly you will be able to find some lawyer who will be willing to take your case and your money to try and argue that view for you. I'll be surprised if any lawyer is willing to take it on contingency basis (taking a percentage of the settlement, they get paid only if you win), and will only take the case on a fee basis (they get paid whether you win or loose). I believe you are looking at throwing additional money at a low-odds probability outcome. But heck it's America, spend your money any way you wish.
If you know any expert lawyer in traffic accidents, please let me know, thanks.
If you know any expert lawyer in traffic accidents, please let me know, thanks.
Try the Bar Association referral service. Should be listed in your phone book. Tell them what specialty you are looking for and they will give you names of local lawyers. Minimal fee for the initial consultation.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
On your story of the person with "no U/M or medpay, so her liability does not help her, only the other party if she caused the wreck..."
Does she also have no health insurance and no disability insurance (beyond what SS provides)? I read an article on health insurance and they called younger people who go without health insurance "the young invincibles".
I told my 20 year old that he could take minimum 25/50 and save a few dollars, but that I thought he should take 50/100 both because the insurance agent said in the case of a claim the other party might be more likely to settle for the insurance amount, because "at least he is trying..." and also because there certainly are vehicles that exceed $25,000 in value and telling someone "oh, you died...here is $25K..." just does not seem right (not that $50K makes it very much better).
So did the dope who complained about someone else having $25K, raise his limits and add underinsured motorist coverage? Also how dumb was he...did he have less than $25K in assets? If so, then I would say he was more irresponsible than dumb, while if he had this minimum liability and any kind of assets then he is dumb and foolish, as well as irresponsible.
I won't know what they did until they have another wreck and hopefully call me...:):):):):)
Of course some people are so poor that they can not afford to raise their limits. I 'm thinking of the poor guy who drives his 20 year old smoker to his job at the chicken plucking plant and back to his rented trailer.
This is your typical uninsured or under insured motorist.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
When you cross traffic, it is your responsibility to make sure the coast is clear. You are crossing I don't doubt you that this was a difficult place to make the left turn. Limited visibility, greater then 90 degree turn, narrow roads, etc. It's all part of driving.
You also missed the last sentence in my post where I suggested contacting your insurance company for help. This is what you pay the premiums for. Not unless alcohol or a death was involved, this case should never see court and can and should be handled by your respective insurance companies. It's your basic, everyday accident. Not unless one of the parties is uninsured....
Oh, and you should have seen the political battle between the ins companies and health care providers over no-fault insurance that was set to expire Oct 1 here in Florida. They did eventually vote to extend no-fault but made some changes to appease the insurance companies.
>In this case, can he claim the medical bills for his passengers (his family members) to his auto insurance company?
> To decline PIP option, we need to sign on a form and send it to the insurance company. My friend said he did this when he first purchase his auto insurance, but did not when he renew it. Do we have to do this every time we renew the insurance?
oldfarmer: I understand your point 101%, and you only bolster my argument why those who are not so poor should be carrying the higher limits, along with U/M, medpay, and the like, simply because since the person who may wreck and injure you may be the poor driver who barely has enough to buy minimum limits, so you need to be sure that YOU cover you, since he certainly will not have enough insurance to cover you in the event of anything more than a simple fender bender...
If both drivers in a serious collision have minimum limits, basically, the obvious happens, and that the innocent party recovers little after paying medical bills, probably loses his job, and spends the rest of his life complaining that it's a shame that people can drive with so little insurance, when he himself carried the same limits...
Call it the lower class hypocrisy of being poor...they carry minimum limits because of their budget, yet when they get injured by a person economically similar to them, they think it's a crime that folks can drive with so little insurance coverage, why don't they change the law...remember, these are the same folks who blame their lack of skills and good pay on everyone else but themselves, it is always someone else's fault for their lot in life...sad, politically incorrect, but true...
So, since you cannot depend on the other guy to carry sufficient limits, carry them on your own, so that collision will fix your car, rental coverage will rent you a vehicle while repairs are being done, medpay will pay your doctor bills, and U/M coverage will cover you for pain, suffering and lost earnings if you desire to pursue on that basis...it is why I carry the additional umbrella policy on my U/M policy, in case I am seriously injured by an uninsured or poorly insured driver, and why I recommend the same for all my clients and readers of these topics...
I am here to educate folks as to what these coverages are and why, IMO, they should pay and have them all...for those who do not want them, just be aware that, depending on your state, you (or your spouse/children) may some day be seriously injured in a wreck and find that the other driver, while legally liable, has no money or lousy insurance (minimum limits) to adequately compensate you for your injuries and damages...having the coverages I recommend will cover you for 99% of possible wrecks...
To me, the cost of the insurance is worth knowing I am covered for the risks I see clients encounter...obviously, those who carry the barest minimums feel differently than I do, but they may be the ones regretting it if they are someday injured by the poorly insured driver, and THEY will be the ones screaming, "Somebody needs to change the law"...
Or, they simply feel comfortable living with the risk they take...I am not, so I buy the insurance coverage...
And, if you ask me, I think that I am proving my graduation from paragraph school as I continue to post...I believe I deserve retroactive appointment as Class Valedictorian...
Unfortunately, from the very 1st day I described the accident, my insurance company also believed that I was at fault. They said I should prove her speeding, otherwise, they could only depend on the police report. The policeman and the policewoman arrived at the scene with an attitude that already minded set that I was at fault. Without questioning me further, the police report after 8 days of investigation came out against me. Oversimplified what I said at the scene in the report. Thats why I need a real good expert lawyer who can attend to every details including the scene, had similar experience that could prove her speeding.
>In this case, can he claim the medical bills for his passengers (his family members) to his auto insurance company?
Do they not have health insurance to pay the medical bills? Won't it be up to the health insurer to pay the medical bills and then subsequently try to collect from the at fault party or your friend's insurance?
What info is missing here? This 'appears' to be a relatively standard accident, where someone turns in front of someone else, and the 2nd party hits them in the side. This is a very typical accident, and insurance companies handle these every day. The DMV/industry practice finds the turning driver at fault, and that insurance company pays, and everyone moves on.
You are apparantely willing/wanting to spend considerable personal expense and time, to try and prove the other party at fault (or partially at fault)......for what? to save your insurance company money? Whether you are completely at fault, or partially at fault doesn't matter....you still have a payable claim with your insurance company.
What is your motivation here, or the missing information from this situation?
YOU need to accept responsibility for YOUR own actions. I have no sympathy for people like YOU.
I agree, that's why I carry 300/500 coverage. My mama didn't raise no chicken pluckers!
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
A person will minimum coverage only, just liability, bare bones, T-bones a brand new Porsche with his old pickup truck. Totals the Porsche.
No injuries..
I presume the Porsche owner gets compensated from his own insurance----what happens to the pickup truck driver who just caused $100,000 damage?
The rest depends on what assets he has...
regards,
kyfdx
visiting host
not a lawyer, doesn't play one on TV
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
If he has substantial assets (owns his own home?), he should probably have a $2MM umbrella liability policy on top of that...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
We have 100/300 on car and house and an umbrella that takes that up to $1 million in liability coverage. For our particular insurance company must have 100/300 on the underlying policies in order to get the umbrella.
If you have $50K in assets.... and have $50K in liability coverage..., then have a $100K claim against you, you'll lose everything..
I think you have to be insured against the highest possible loss.. Of course, you can't do that exactly.. but, within reason...
regards,
kyfdx
again.. not a lawyer or insurance expert
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
But, wait, there's more!!!...Sam Walton drove an old pickup truck, and was worth billions...so, one needs to do a complete asset search, costing between $500-700...please front to me the cost of the search, so I can determine if there are assets worth suing for, since he only had a minimum limits policy...oh, you expect ME to front the $700 just to see if YOU have a case worth suing, a case that YOU expect ME to front all the expenses in the hope that you win...sorry, I was not born yesterday...YOU will have to pay me for the asset search, so I at least know if you have a case worth pursuing...
SamNC...suck up and take liability and be done with it...you will be hard pressed to PROVE that the other driver was speeding, and that you simply exercised poor judgment...without any other witnesses stating that she drove recklessly, no one can prove ANYTHING except that you failed to yield the right of way...
BTW, that is also why the guy with the Porsche has his own collision insurance, to cover that the other guy may have minimum limits...after they pay out to repair the Porsche, your collision may attempt to pursue the other guy, but, like above, if he was driving a 1972 F150, the odds are that your collision will not pursue him, simply because THEY almsot never conduct an asset search either...
Are you aware, for example, what 250/500/100 means?
250 = $250K in bodily injuries per person
500 = $500K in bodily injuries per accident
100 = $100K in property damage. This is the bucket a totalled out Porsche would come from.
Oh, sure, blame it on the poor chap in the pickup! I'm betting the Porsche driver was so enthralled with his machine that he failed to observe the stop sign as he barreled through the intersection ...! :P
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
You'd think they would be exempt from t-boning as well. :shades:
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Get real, yes, my insurance company today said I have a weak case and prepare to pay the at fault driver.
Now, I am trying to get evidences of her speeding if both insurance companies will honestly carried out investigations - take a look at my wrecked car as the 1st step. If the evidence comes, I will let you judgemental people know here. If it does not come out, well, tease as you wish!