"It is obvious she turned in front of me and so a citation for failure to yield should have been in order??"
I have come to realize that police do not always issue a ticket, because it may mean that the cop has to show up in court...here in GA, as long as the police report states "Driver #1 was at fault for failure to yield while turning left" it is sufficient for most insurance companies to accept fault...altho they do reserve the right to investigate on their own, and sometimes, not often, their investigation will reveal something the exact opposite of the police report, so it may go to lawsuit, which may sometimes be a waste of time...too often juries may look at both sides, split the difference, and place both parties equally at fault...and in GA, equal fault means no recovery for either side...that "hybrid comparative negligence" I spoke about earlier means that for one party to recover, the other party must be "50 plus 0.0000000001 % at fault...in other words, as long as one party is 49.999999999% than they are "innocent" and they can recover form the party who is 50.00000001% at fault...in a perfect world, money would be recovered without a reduction, but in the real world, juries will often reduce the award on their own...
One of the toughest cases is when two drivers come to a 4 way stop with stop signs...determining fault may be impossible because each driver will say they got there first...in order to litigate those cases, clients must put their money up front for all expenses, since the chance of loss is too high...
In other words, sometimes your "day in court" simply isn't worth it...
Probably would not able to prove negligence, but if you're not paying attention to road conditions, and you hit a hunk of tire that easily could have been avoided, I would say you are at fault for any damages that occured.
I think I see your point, but the problem may be "easily could have been avoided"...driving 60 mph, driving in the dark, driving in heavy traffic still going 60 mph, or having a car right beside you may prvent you from avoiding something on the road...your odds of recovering damages from a flying object from the road that was not attached to the offending vehicle may be, IMO, very difficult to prove negligence...to me, your chances of recovery are slim to none...
I just got a call from the adjuster of her insurance. The figures presented were actually real close to what I expected. Not what I was hoping for, but what I expected. Subtract the 10% and I am left with just shy of 5K. I have thought about trying to up it, but to me it's not worth the fight and hassle. I have done research and found several vehicles around my area "selling" for quite a bit more, but in reality, none of those dealers are going to sell the vehicles for their asking price and so the figure given to me is real close to what I expected. I was hoping for more. I'm not going to try and "finagle" more out of the insurance company. As for the 90%?? Well again, as long as it's not going against my insurance, I'm not going to try and fight for every last percent. I got the police report today. It doesn't say anything actually that I didn't already know. It's just a bunch of situations to check and it clearly indicates what happened as I described above. Obviously, the other party is mostly at fault. I won't say that perhaps I could have prevented it as that is something we will never know. There is the possibility that I could have. So long as they don't come back and say that it was 90% my fault or some odd number.
They are allowing me to retrieve my good wheels and tires that have less than 1000 miles on them and the ladder rack with out deducting from the value of the vehicle. That is also helping my decision. I will be able to re-use the rack and wheels if I get another S10 (possible, but that decision hasn't been made yet), or I can turn around and sell those for enough to compensate for at least the 10% I'm losing if not more...
When my daughter drowned her car last winter the insurance company gave me a payout figure. I asked the adjuster if they could do any better and after she hemmed and hawed a bit said she'd check with her supervisor and call me back came back with another grand. I was stunned and pleased.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Good thinking. Take that offer, it's fair enough, at least to this outsider who has no real attachment to your truck, I mean.
I averaged out about 50 asking prices on Autotrader for your exact type/year of truck with over 100K miles, various zip codes, and I got a 50-truck average of about $5900. So, presuming "asking" is not the same as "getting", and including trucks from dealers, who tend to inflate anyway, this offer of $5K sounds about right to me.
I think this is just the other insurance company trying to keep the cost of the claim down... I'm guessing there is no documentation, other than them stating it to you...
And.. while I understand the concept of comparative negligence, the other person's insurance company wouldn't be the one that I would trust to put a number on it (even if it were valid).
But, I agree with the others... if you are happy with the settlement, grab it and run..
It does. The price is "Fair" as Shiftright said. More fair towards them than me, I think, but they are allowing me to get my rack and brand new wheels and tires without reducing the total amount I am recieving. So that in my mind equals out to just "fair". It's enough that I can take it down and use it as down payment on something nicer, buy something comparable to what I had, buy a beater and have money left over or not do anything and just save the money for a rainy day. I was quite attached to the poor truck since I put almost all of those 140K miles on it and I've had for almost 8 years. It's been around through 3 moves, 2 houses and 2 kids, one of which actually cried when she learned daddy's truck wasn't coming home. Anyway, I've detached myself from the vehicle and I am ready for it to be over...
I think this is just the other insurance company trying to keep the cost of the claim down
My thoughts exactly, but we're not talking a great deal of money here, 10% of the $5K, only $500. To me it wouldn't be about the money, but like they say, when someone says it's not about the money? It always ends up being about the money.
Taking the extra parts off the truck probably was worth at least the $500, so it was the right move to do. Get things done and move on.
" I won't say that perhaps I could have prevented it as that is something we will never know. There is the possibility that I could have."
Here we call that "last clear chance"...if there is a way that I could take evasive action without endagering myself or others to avoid an accident, one could say that I had the last clear chance to avoid a collision...rarely works with rear end collisions, or if you are broadsided while standing still in traffic...frankly, it rarely works at all, but sometimes at-fault companies try to assert that you could have avoided it but too many folks don't see the oncoming collision until 1-2 seconds prior to impact, if that...
Officer, I was driving about 50 mph and this tree just jumped out in front of me and I had no choice but to hit it, 50 feet on my neighbor's yard...please issue a ticket to the tree for failure to yield...
so class is in session...take notes, there WILL be a test...
I am aware of three types of automobile negligence...they are contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and hybrid comparative negligence...if there are others, they escape me at this time past 10:00 pm...
Contributory negligence...this is, IMO, the worst of all worlds...if the other drive is 99% at fault, and you share a mere 1% of fault, you are precluded (prevented) from recovering for your damages because you do have some fault...so, the driver who is 99% at fault goes away scot free...I assume there are states with this as state law, but I have no idea who or how many...I sure hope very few...
True Comparative negligence...this is simply apportioned by percentage fault...if you are 30% at fault and the other guy is 70% at fault, if you are awarded $10,000, your award is reduced by law by $3,000 (your 30%) down to $7,000...I am also under the belief that in a true comparative state, the driver who is 70% at fault can actually pursue the other driver who is 30% at fault (but I may be wrong on that)...
Hybrid comparative negligence (Georgia)...is order to recover, the other guy must be over 50% at fault (50.000000000001) and you must be less than 50% (49.999999999)...so, if YOU are 55% at fault you have NO RIGHT to pursue the other driver...so, if fault is split 50-50, neither party can recover from the other...
And, of course, the above applies to "fault" states...for those states with "no fault" the system is probably different...Georgia was no-fault until 1992...
Class is dismissed...the test will be Monday, essay and fill-in-the-blank...
Bribes to pass may be sent to...donations may be sent to...
Since I just took Torts last year for 1L, I can tell you that you have it about covered. In Pennsylvania, its not called Hybrid Comparative Negligence, its called Modified Comparative, and we are also a Modified state like Georgia.
I could go back to my notes but I'm still experiencing PTSD from that class.
2025 Jetta GLI Autobahn, 2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xE
2 A.M. Blizzard conditions; your stick shift car is stopped at a Red light. A sleepy driver of a semi rearends you & everylthing burns up. It is deemed you are 10% at fault because you did NOT illuminate your Brake lights prior to the crash. The semi's insurance company pays you 90% of $2,000 for your car and your obligation to the semi's owner is 10% of his damages which total over $1,500,000 due to the destruction of the valuable cargo consisting of fur coats. How do you come up with $150,000 when your Property Damage Liability limit is only $25,000? Answer: High Limits of Liability & then you qualify for an Umbrella.
Interesting scenario but I would think the truck driver 100% no matter what, especially if you are stopped. Not only did he hit a stationary object legally parked, but he was not driving in accordance with weather conditions.
But I see your argument here and I'm sure there would be a scenario where this would be very good advice.
fire: Modified Comparative sounds like it makes more sense than hybrid, but I don't get asked when they name these things...
euphonium: you have raised another possibility to support my theory of having high liability limits with an umbrella, but that would depend on the type your state has...here in GA, the truck would be at fault and the other driver (victim) would not be, but I still reco high limits because you could be the driver that causes the wrongful death of somebody...and you know my thoughts on medpay...
fezo: you have just earned 21 demerit points in my class, so the highest score you can get on the final is a 79, which is a C+...if you want a better grade, you may write a 30 page essay, single spaced, one inch margins, on a topic near to my heart..."Why the UAW has Destroyed This Nation and Why Floorsweepers are NOT Worth $35/hour Plus Benefits"...send a copy to rocky, while you're at it... ...if I am happy with your tome, I will award you back 20 of your missing 21 points...oh, I forgot...11 point type, but I will make one part easy for you...the very last page only needs to be 50% filled, whereas the other pages must be completely filled...
I am a hard taskmaster...NOBODY suffers PTSD from my posts and gets away with telling others about it...
"Striking something on the road that then hits your car is NOT the fault of the driver in front of you...had it come directly off that vehicle, your argument is good...but if I run over a hibcap and it flies up and breaks your windshield, tough luck for you...pay for it...no negligence on my part..."
In a situation such as this, where debris from the road hits your car or you hit something in the road, would that be covered by comprehensive rather than collision coverage? And what about damage caused by a collision with an animal (deer, cow, goat....I'm in rural North Georgia, those are all potential hazards)! That would also be a comprehensive claim?
I know that damage from weather (hail, etc.), vandalism and other situations where the vehicle is parked when the damage occurs. But things like the road debris damage or collision with animals seem like they would be covered by collision rather than comprehensive. Until recently, I always understood anything that happened while the car was moving to be filed as collision claims.
Two years ago, I had a nasty run-in with a pothole that did considerable damage to my car. Both wheels on the right side of the car were bent and had to be replaced (over $400 each) but somehow the tires weren't damaged....but the impact caused one of the liquid-filled engine mounts to explode and spray it's oil-like fluid everywhere under the hood! There was also some suspension damage on the right front and an alignment was necessary after a such a hard hit, too.
I planned to just pay for the repairs myself, until the repair estimate topped $1500! At that point, it made sense to report it to my insurance company and pay the $500 collision deductible, saving me over $1000. But when I called my agent to tell her what happened, she told me it was a comprehensive claim, which only has a $250 deductible on my policy!
It still is a bit of a 'gray' are for me, which is why I like having a local agent who I can track down any time...
> I had a nasty run-in with a pothole that did considerable damage to my car. Both wheels on the right side of the car were bent and had to be replaced (over $400 each) but somehow the tires weren't damaged....but the impact caused one of the liquid-filled engine mounts to explode
In Ohio you can sue the state for the pothole damage. It's actually a paper claims process that gets filed and is essentially a law suit. It's enough to discourage filing the suits for small, uninsured amounts. But a $500 deductive might be worth going after.
With a name like igozoomzoom, one might guess you were a Mazda fan... :shades:
I suppose that would depend on your insurance company...it may be like a "fielder's choice" in baseball, where the agent may have sway whether comp or collision handles the claim (of course, my deductible is the same on both, so it would not matter to me)...
Plus, that is something that I really would not handle in my job as an atty...we represent for bodily injury only, as damages to the vehicle are what they are...the cost to repair is relatively "constant" so there is rarely something for an atty to negotiate...esp with Internet sources like edmunds, KBB, NADA, etc....years ago, an atty might have some negotiating power, but now that everyone has access to the aforementioned sources, add up the 3 sources, divide by 3, and get an avg value for the vehicle (assuming it is totalled)...
I imagine I'm late for the test; and should have read up past this point as I assume all answers have been posted already.
I have to say I've never heard the team hybrid comparative negligence ... but that may be a southern thing. I understand that (hybrid) as modified comparative negligence ... and you can have two kinds. 50/50 and 49/51. The difference being at with 49/51 when neither party is more negligent, i.e., 50/50 split then neither party collects ... with modified comparative 50/50 ... at 50/50 then both parties collect. I know, it seems counter-intuitive, but most statutes are.
Additionally, I'm certain that there is still negligence assessed in "no fault" states (I assume you mean Michigan, and not PIP states). A quick perusal indicates that it is comparative for economic, for non-economic it is modified comparative 50/50 .. wow, that just doesn't seem right ... and adds another twist that I didn't expect.
"The difference being at with 49/51 when neither party is more negligent"
Here, by definition, at 49/51, one party IS more negligent (51) and the 49 can recover from them...now, that is the abstract...I would always question just HOW some cop can actually say that one person (the 49) was almost sufficiently negligent to casue the wreck, but didn't quite make it...
"no fault" states (I assume you mean Michigan, and not PIP states)."...I refer to no fault states in the generic sense, simply due to my ignorance of how those states work...we have been a fault state since 1991, almost 20 years...I thought that all no fault states had PIP (in place of medpay) so if Michigan is different, I would not know...always ready to learn, however... :confuse:
BTW: "at 50/50 then both parties collect."...here, at 50/50, it is termed a "true accident" so neither party collects...both make claims on their own collision and their own medpay...neither collects from the other's liability for pain and suffering...
You are spot on ... except that the 49/51 and 50/50 refer to the liability split where you CAN recover ... thus with modified comparative 49/51 you can NOT recover with a 50/50 split. I hope that doesn't confuse things more ... basically, Georgia is what I would refer to as a 50/50. And now that I'm actually trying to name the types of negligence, I wonder how much it really matters as the statutes don't mention anything about 50/50 or 49/51 typically, but center around "equal fault"
My understanding of "no fault" in regards to negligence is that I assumed Michigan was a true "no fault" state in that there was no recovery through the other carrier or party regardless of negligence ... it seems I was wrong however.
But as a PIP state, the PIP, while independent of negligence and statute driven is not really a negligence law. It typically is just a mandatory and primary means of medical recovery ... at least in my state and the venues that I am familiar with. But, that "no fault" doesn't affect collection of any economic damages from the tortfeasor ... and doesn't limit non-economic either once a minimal and pointless threshold is breached. (though there are other things that limit n/e damages).
I can only surmise what no fault is like...I just thought that PIP was mandatory (whereas medpay is optional in GA), that you can purchase PIP limits up to $100K, and that I also thought that you recover from your own insurance for pain and suffering...it is only a theory for me, because I practice in a fault state, so no fault is simply an academic exercise for expanding my knowledge, but that knowledge has no use in my state...and if Michigan is different, let me know what makes them so special... :P
I hardly think insurance companies are under the cruel oppression of liberal application of the law. If anything, they get away with murder under the most lax and prejudicial laws against consumers that I've ever seen governing an industry. And why not---they get to WRITE them--LOL!
Gee, I didn't know you have been active in the insurance business other than maybe as a physical damage appraiser.
There is no cruel oppression involved when liberal lawmakers craft legislation to take the sting out of being responsible for a crash. Bit by bit liberal laws diminish personal accountability.
is when a possible auto accident client comes to see me, or calls me on the phone...I ask them to tell me what happened, and they usually do...then I ask that magic question..."were you injured?"...every now and then someone will say "no" but they want to know about getting pain and suffering...I have to stifle my laughing when I tell them that you have to EXPERIENCE pain and suffering in order to be COMPENSATED for pain and suffering...no injuries?...no money for Doc bills or additional compensation...after all, if you don't need to see the Doc, why should there be $$$ for (imaginary) Doc bills???
I could tell you who usually thinks that way, but I won't...
It's insurance companies who encourage abandonment of personal accountability, isn't it? What's the first thing they tell us? "Don't admit to any fault"--LOL!
Stripped of consumer protection laws, we'd be dead meat IMO.
Oh, the stories I could tell----I hope someday they have one of those big Senate Hearings on Insurance Reform---I'd love to testify.
If you want to know what it's like dealing with auto insurance companies in California, I would suggest re-reading Kafka's "The Trial".
Part of my difficulties was entirely my fault. I used to argue for clients (if they had a good case I mean) on the basis of "fairness", "ethics", "justice".
That was just stupid.
Now I used a) hard data and b) maneuver. This has worked out a lot better and is really the way to approach The Machine.
You know it all depends on the venue. Insurance companies make a profit ... hell, they'd have to be idiots to not be able to. But what people don't seem to understand is that the profit they make is not off of anyone involved in an accident or incident ... they just try to stifle the bleeding on the claims end.
Anyone that thinks that putting aftermarket parts, or adjusting medical billing or anything of the sort really makes the insurance carriers a substantial profit is fooling themselves. Policies in force and investments ensure that they will pretty much always make money unless they get greedy.
Back to the venue, I often think the same thing in some venues that I am familiar with. I wonder how the concept of indemnification became so warped as to allow the damaged party to collect from multiple sources, the same damages, with no offset. How can that be justified? People and carriers through there constant greed, posturing, skepticism and dishonesty perpetuate this ongoing battle. If it was in fashion again to simply be made whole, then life would be much better.
And any state where you collect all pain and suffering from your own carrier must be one big bad faith fiasco.
I have to stifle my laughing when I tell them that you have to EXPERIENCE pain and suffering in order to be COMPENSATED for pain and suffering...no injuries?...
Here in Florida I believe there must be a permanent injury in order to recover pain and suffering. Hit by a drunk driver going 45 MPH while sitting at a red light like my wife was? I was told by two attorneys that as long as she recovers w/o anything permanent that she could not be compensated for the intense pain she went through for several weeks while her body healed.
No, not that way here in GA...permanent injury will result in more compensation (as will broken bones and scars on face) but you can recover pain and suffering simply from being injured...let's face it, many folks ARE injured in collisions but the pain usually resolves in 2-3 months, usually with treatment...pain pills often fail, but physical therapy or chiropractic care often help...I had a slip and fall case where she injured her lower back...orthopod wanted to do an epidural, she chose chiro after 6 weeks of PT failed...4 weeks of chiro and she was fixed...case settled for $14,000...not a lot but I thought she was fairly compensated considering 4 months of pain/spasm...most simple auto accidents (cervical sprain/strain) will settle here for under $10K and often under $6K...so, yes, there is compensation as I think there should be, but folks rarely retire on their auto settlement...unless there is devastating injury, in which case money rarely compensates for any loss of limb or body function, but it's all we have...
My understanding is that doctors write out 5% permanant partial disability for a head cold in Florida ... for that very reason. Unfortunate that a severe impact to an honest person can go uncompensated and a minor impact to the "creative" will not.
Because a 5% disability is actually quite minor...according to the Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (4th or 5th maybe up to 6th Edition) simply having a muscle spasm or a degenerative disk at L5 can qualify a person for a 5% impairment, so it is worth almost nothing...maybe someone will correct me on this, but you really don't become seriously impaired until you break 20% or more "whole body"...
I have friends who were hurt in car accidents and they were harrassed, tormented and treated like crap by insurance companies. It was not an encouraging display. I suppose blaming the victim is the counterbalancing push against too much consumer legislation?
Agreed ... but the extent of permanance doesn't matter in this situation, as that is only the trigger. Once you have breached the threshold, you can argue all sorts of non-economic damages. But without that disability rating, you can't argue squat ... in that venue.
It's just another good example of the market adjusting to ensure that PIP statutes are rendered utterly ineffective.
Comments
something like that.
I have come to realize that police do not always issue a ticket, because it may mean that the cop has to show up in court...here in GA, as long as the police report states "Driver #1 was at fault for failure to yield while turning left" it is sufficient for most insurance companies to accept fault...altho they do reserve the right to investigate on their own, and sometimes, not often, their investigation will reveal something the exact opposite of the police report, so it may go to lawsuit, which may sometimes be a waste of time...too often juries may look at both sides, split the difference, and place both parties equally at fault...and in GA, equal fault means no recovery for either side...that "hybrid comparative negligence" I spoke about earlier means that for one party to recover, the other party must be "50 plus 0.0000000001 % at fault...in other words, as long as one party is 49.999999999% than they are "innocent" and they can recover form the party who is 50.00000001% at fault...in a perfect world, money would be recovered without a reduction, but in the real world, juries will often reduce the award on their own...
One of the toughest cases is when two drivers come to a 4 way stop with stop signs...determining fault may be impossible because each driver will say they got there first...in order to litigate those cases, clients must put their money up front for all expenses, since the chance of loss is too high...
In other words, sometimes your "day in court" simply isn't worth it...
Probably would not able to prove negligence, but if you're not paying attention to road conditions, and you hit a hunk of tire that easily could have been avoided, I would say you are at fault for any damages that occured.
They are allowing me to retrieve my good wheels and tires that have less than 1000 miles on them and the ladder rack with out deducting from the value of the vehicle. That is also helping my decision. I will be able to re-use the rack and wheels if I get another S10 (possible, but that decision hasn't been made yet), or I can turn around and sell those for enough to compensate for at least the 10% I'm losing if not more...
When my daughter drowned her car last winter the insurance company gave me a payout figure. I asked the adjuster if they could do any better and after she hemmed and hawed a bit said she'd check with her supervisor and call me back came back with another grand. I was stunned and pleased.
I averaged out about 50 asking prices on Autotrader for your exact type/year of truck with over 100K miles, various zip codes, and I got a 50-truck average of about $5900. So, presuming "asking" is not the same as "getting", and including trucks from dealers, who tend to inflate anyway, this offer of $5K sounds about right to me.
And.. while I understand the concept of comparative negligence, the other person's insurance company wouldn't be the one that I would trust to put a number on it (even if it were valid).
But, I agree with the others... if you are happy with the settlement, grab it and run..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
In some states you simply transfer the plate from the old car to the new one. Cost is $20 in my state.
My thoughts exactly, but we're not talking a great deal of money here, 10% of the $5K, only $500. To me it wouldn't be about the money, but like they say, when someone says it's not about the money? It always ends up being about the money.
Taking the extra parts off the truck probably was worth at least the $500, so it was the right move to do. Get things done and move on.
Here we call that "last clear chance"...if there is a way that I could take evasive action without endagering myself or others to avoid an accident, one could say that I had the last clear chance to avoid a collision...rarely works with rear end collisions, or if you are broadsided while standing still in traffic...frankly, it rarely works at all, but sometimes at-fault companies try to assert that you could have avoided it but too many folks don't see the oncoming collision until 1-2 seconds prior to impact, if that...
I am aware of three types of automobile negligence...they are contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and hybrid comparative negligence...if there are others, they escape me at this time past 10:00 pm...
Contributory negligence...this is, IMO, the worst of all worlds...if the other drive is 99% at fault, and you share a mere 1% of fault, you are precluded (prevented) from recovering for your damages because you do have some fault...so, the driver who is 99% at fault goes away scot free...I assume there are states with this as state law, but I have no idea who or how many...I sure hope very few...
True Comparative negligence...this is simply apportioned by percentage fault...if you are 30% at fault and the other guy is 70% at fault, if you are awarded $10,000, your award is reduced by law by $3,000 (your 30%) down to $7,000...I am also under the belief that in a true comparative state, the driver who is 70% at fault can actually pursue the other driver who is 30% at fault (but I may be wrong on that)...
Hybrid comparative negligence (Georgia)...is order to recover, the other guy must be over 50% at fault (50.000000000001) and you must be less than 50% (49.999999999)...so, if YOU are 55% at fault you have NO RIGHT to pursue the other driver...so, if fault is split 50-50, neither party can recover from the other...
And, of course, the above applies to "fault" states...for those states with "no fault" the system is probably different...Georgia was no-fault until 1992...
Class is dismissed...the test will be Monday, essay and fill-in-the-blank...
Bribes to pass may be sent to...donations may be sent to...I could go back to my notes but I'm still experiencing PTSD from that class.
High Limits of Liability & then you qualify for an Umbrella.
But I see your argument here and I'm sure there would be a scenario where this would be very good advice.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
euphonium: you have raised another possibility to support my theory of having high liability limits with an umbrella, but that would depend on the type your state has...here in GA, the truck would be at fault and the other driver (victim) would not be, but I still reco high limits because you could be the driver that causes the wrongful death of somebody...and you know my thoughts on medpay...
fezo: you have just earned 21 demerit points in my class, so the highest score you can get on the final is a 79, which is a C+...if you want a better grade, you may write a 30 page essay, single spaced, one inch margins, on a topic near to my heart..."Why the UAW has Destroyed This Nation and Why Floorsweepers are NOT Worth $35/hour Plus Benefits"...send a copy to rocky, while you're at it...
I am a hard taskmaster...NOBODY suffers PTSD from my posts and gets away with telling others about it...
Start writing...:):):):):)
In a situation such as this, where debris from the road hits your car or you hit something in the road, would that be covered by comprehensive rather than collision coverage? And what about damage caused by a collision with an animal (deer, cow, goat....I'm in rural North Georgia, those are all potential hazards)!
I know that damage from weather (hail, etc.), vandalism and other situations where the vehicle is parked when the damage occurs. But things like the road debris damage or collision with animals seem like they would be covered by collision rather than comprehensive. Until recently, I always understood anything that happened while the car was moving to be filed as collision claims.
Two years ago, I had a nasty run-in with a pothole that did considerable damage to my car. Both wheels on the right side of the car were bent and had to be replaced (over $400 each) but somehow the tires weren't damaged....but the impact caused one of the liquid-filled engine mounts to explode and spray it's oil-like fluid everywhere under the hood! There was also some suspension damage on the right front and an alignment was necessary after a such a hard hit, too.
I planned to just pay for the repairs myself, until the repair estimate topped $1500! At that point, it made sense to report it to my insurance company and pay the $500 collision deductible, saving me over $1000. But when I called my agent to tell her what happened, she told me it was a comprehensive claim, which only has a $250 deductible on my policy!
It still is a bit of a 'gray' are for me, which is why I like having a local agent who I can track down any time...
In Ohio you can sue the state for the pothole damage. It's actually a paper claims process that gets filed and is essentially a law suit. It's enough to discourage filing the suits for small, uninsured amounts. But a $500 deductive might be worth going after.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I suppose that would depend on your insurance company...it may be like a "fielder's choice" in baseball, where the agent may have sway whether comp or collision handles the claim (of course, my deductible is the same on both, so it would not matter to me)...
Plus, that is something that I really would not handle in my job as an atty...we represent for bodily injury only, as damages to the vehicle are what they are...the cost to repair is relatively "constant" so there is rarely something for an atty to negotiate...esp with Internet sources like edmunds, KBB, NADA, etc....years ago, an atty might have some negotiating power, but now that everyone has access to the aforementioned sources, add up the 3 sources, divide by 3, and get an avg value for the vehicle (assuming it is totalled)...
I have to say I've never heard the team hybrid comparative negligence ... but that may be a southern thing. I understand that (hybrid) as modified comparative negligence ... and you can have two kinds. 50/50 and 49/51. The difference being at with 49/51 when neither party is more negligent, i.e., 50/50 split then neither party collects ... with modified comparative 50/50 ... at 50/50 then both parties collect. I know, it seems counter-intuitive, but most statutes are.
Additionally, I'm certain that there is still negligence assessed in "no fault" states (I assume you mean Michigan, and not PIP states). A quick perusal indicates that it is comparative for economic, for non-economic it is modified comparative 50/50 .. wow, that just doesn't seem right ... and adds another twist that I didn't expect.
Here, by definition, at 49/51, one party IS more negligent (51) and the 49 can recover from them...now, that is the abstract...I would always question just HOW some cop can actually say that one person (the 49) was almost sufficiently negligent to casue the wreck, but didn't quite make it...
"no fault" states (I assume you mean Michigan, and not PIP states)."...I refer to no fault states in the generic sense, simply due to my ignorance of how those states work...we have been a fault state since 1991, almost 20 years...I thought that all no fault states had PIP (in place of medpay) so if Michigan is different, I would not know...always ready to learn, however...
BTW: "at 50/50 then both parties collect."...here, at 50/50, it is termed a "true accident" so neither party collects...both make claims on their own collision and their own medpay...neither collects from the other's liability for pain and suffering...
My understanding of "no fault" in regards to negligence is that I assumed Michigan was a true "no fault" state in that there was no recovery through the other carrier or party regardless of negligence ... it seems I was wrong however.
But as a PIP state, the PIP, while independent of negligence and statute driven is not really a negligence law. It typically is just a mandatory and primary means of medical recovery ... at least in my state and the venues that I am familiar with. But, that "no fault" doesn't affect collection of any economic damages from the tortfeasor ... and doesn't limit non-economic either once a minimal and pointless threshold is breached. (though there are other things that limit n/e damages).
Liberal law makers.
There is no cruel oppression involved when liberal lawmakers craft legislation to take the sting out of being responsible for a crash. Bit by bit liberal laws diminish personal accountability.
I could tell you who usually thinks that way, but I won't...
Stripped of consumer protection laws, we'd be dead meat IMO.
Oh, the stories I could tell----I hope someday they have one of those big Senate Hearings on Insurance Reform---I'd love to testify.
If you want to know what it's like dealing with auto insurance companies in California, I would suggest re-reading Kafka's "The Trial".
Part of my difficulties was entirely my fault. I used to argue for clients (if they had a good case I mean) on the basis of "fairness", "ethics", "justice".
That was just stupid.
Now I used a) hard data and b) maneuver. This has worked out a lot better and is really the way to approach The Machine.
Anyone that thinks that putting aftermarket parts, or adjusting medical billing or anything of the sort really makes the insurance carriers a substantial profit is fooling themselves. Policies in force and investments ensure that they will pretty much always make money unless they get greedy.
Back to the venue, I often think the same thing in some venues that I am familiar with. I wonder how the concept of indemnification became so warped as to allow the damaged party to collect from multiple sources, the same damages, with no offset. How can that be justified? People and carriers through there constant greed, posturing, skepticism and dishonesty perpetuate this ongoing battle. If it was in fashion again to simply be made whole, then life would be much better.
And any state where you collect all pain and suffering from your own carrier must be one big bad faith fiasco.
Here in Florida I believe there must be a permanent injury in order to recover pain and suffering. Hit by a drunk driver going 45 MPH while sitting at a red light like my wife was? I was told by two attorneys that as long as she recovers w/o anything permanent that she could not be compensated for the intense pain she went through for several weeks while her body healed.
Sort of like shopping for a new car..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
It's just another good example of the market adjusting to ensure that PIP statutes are rendered utterly ineffective.