Car accident, what would you do?

[Lindy]

6 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Here is what I think actually happened.  The guy has a crappy car.  He wants a better car.  He has comprehensive insurance on his car and find a victim driving too close.  He jams on the brakes causing an accident.  He collects money from insurance, calls me telling me a sob story how insurance won't pay and tries to collect additional funds from me to help him get a better car.

Unfortunately it happens all the time. Sad we can't trust people all the time.

[Just_A_Guy]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But, what the other guy can sue you for is not the same as what is ethical.  

The devil, you say!  

[mrmarklin]

Let your insurance company handle this. It knows the law and will advise accordingly. You are correct in that this is probably a scam. Don’t write any checks. 

[anatess2]

On 9/14/2018 at 10:07 PM, Backroads said:

 

Then again, why have insurance if we were all willing to pull cash from our pockets over every fender bender?

 

Insurance are there for catastrophes.  It's not supposed to be for fender benders.  That's why you have a deductible and a savings account.  This is how medical insurance is also supposed to work.  It's not supposed to be for sniffles.

In any case, we pull cash from our pockets to hopefully fix what we broke.  If you're not the one who broke it, you don't have to go fix it.

Edited September 17, 2018 by anatess2

[Lost Boy]

A bit of an update.

I spoke with an auto law attorney. She said what often happens here is that the insurance companies will put a clause in the policy that states only drivers covered on the policy will be covered.   And here is the real sucky thing for the owner of the car if that is the case.  Under the no fault law of the state, if the driver not at fault does not have insurance, they are not entitled to the $1000 that no fault would typically entitle him to.  The brother was driving the car and he might not have been covered by the policy which would effectively mean that the car was not covered and he would receive nothing.

So I can completely understand his frustration.  Time to call my insurance company and see if people not listed on my policy are covered.

[Backroads]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 7:43 AM, anatess2 said:

Insurance are there for catastrophes.  It's not supposed to be for fender benders.  That's why you have a deductible and a savings account.  This is how medical insurance is also supposed to work.  It's not supposed to be for sniffles.

In any case, we pull cash from our pockets to hopefully fix what we broke.  If you're not the one who broke it, you don't have to go fix it.

I meant it in general allusion to accidents, but I see your point.

[Backroads]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

A bit of an update.

I spoke with an auto law attorney. She said what often happens here is that the insurance companies will put a clause in the policy that states only drivers covered on the policy will be covered.   And here is the real sucky thing for the owner of the car if that is the case.  Under the no fault law of the state, if the driver not at fault does not have insurance, they are not entitled to the $1000 that no fault would typically entitle him to.  The brother was driving the car and he might not have been covered by the policy which would effectively mean that the car was not covered and he would receive nothing.

So I can completely understand his frustration.  Time to call my insurance company and see if people not listed on my policy are covered.

Yeah, I get his frustration and perhaps desperation. I think more people than would care to personally admit let sibling or Grandma or mysterious stranger drive their cars now and then, just trusting to luck.

 

[Lost Boy]

I thought this was all done and over as I hadn't heard anything from the owner of the other car for a couple of weeks.

I got a call from my insurance this morning telling me that they had just got off the phone with me and was demanding them pay for all of his damages.  They refused because under no fault law he is required to have his own insurance cover the damages.  So he got irate with my insurance company and my insurance company hung up on him.

Shortly after, I got a call from the guy demanding that I pay for the damages to his car or he is going to take me to court.  I told him that I won't pay.  That is what insurance is for.  So he stated again that he is taking me to court.  So I guess we will see if I am going to court or not.  The law is pretty clear here that he is entitled only to a maximum of $1000, which my insurance has already paid him.  It is not my fault his insurance won't pay for his damage.  The reason his insurance won't pay is because he had been lending his car to his brother and while insurance will cover that if it is for a short time, if it is for an extended time the brother needed to be on the policy, which he was not.  So his insurance denied the claim.  

That is not my fault.  That is his.  So life may become a bit more interesting.  We shall see.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So sorry you have to deal with this. Sounds like the law is on your side, hopefully he will realize it would be a waste of money to take you to court.

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So sorry you have to deal with this. Sounds like the law is on your side, hopefully he will realize it would be a waste of money to take you to court.

I am pretty sure he is going to try.  He has the right to try.  It will end up costing him more, but in the end, I haven't done anything wrong and don't have any notion of giving him money.

Honestly, in the end, it was my daughter who is 18 who caused the accident and really he should be taking her to court, but I would rather him take me to court so I didn't offer that suggestion to him.

[Guest Scott]

I'm curious on how this all works for someone driving through another state. I've never worried about driving in a no fault insurance state, but if I drove in that state and someone else was at fault, they would only have to pay $1000?   Is this correct?   

I assume this applies to every one in a no fault state, even if they are insured in another state?   

 

 

[Lost Boy]

32 minutes ago, Scott said:

I'm curious on how this all works for someone driving through another state. I've never worried about driving in a no fault insurance state, but if I drove in that state and someone else was at fault, they would only have to pay $1000?   Is this correct?   

I assume this applies to every one in a no fault state, even if they are insured in another state?   

 

 

If you live in a no fault state and you drive to another state and cause an accident, your insurance will cover the other car.

[Grunt]

23 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I am pretty sure he is going to try.  He has the right to try.  It will end up costing him more, but in the end, I haven't done anything wrong and don't have any notion of giving him money.

Honestly, in the end, it was my daughter who is 18 who caused the accident and really he should be taking her to court, but I would rather him take me to court so I didn't offer that suggestion to him.

I wouldn't sue you, I'd sue your daughter.

[pwrfrk]

This is why I have better than normal coverage.  Sure, the law says all I must have, but...is that really sufficient?  Is it right?  Is it moral?  Is it ethical?  You tell me.

I can, OTOH, spend an extra $50-60 a month and have better than normal coverage.  Is that $50 or $60 I could be saving really worth "that much" to me?  Not really.  But, when everything is considered, that $50 or $60 a month may only equal around $7,200 to $8,600....if I look in retrospect, when I see what it really becomes in a serious accident is truly worth ten times it's weight in gold.  Having better than normal coverage came back to me back in 2009.  In late 2006 I was in a serious accident.  The other person, he had the state minimum, which ain't squat, for insurance.  If I had the state minimum, I would have been in for a world of major hurt.  My initial medical bills alone reached 80k.  Since then, the covered medical has paid out 130k.  State minimum is, IIRC, 5k.  When everything was over my policy and his policy forked over to me close to $350,000.  That really isn't as much as I wish because I am (from that accident) permanently disabled.  But medical and lawyers are paid for. 

So have better than normal coverage.  LB, that fella wants to harass you, your insurance carrier will deal with him.  If he wants to scam you, your insurance carrier will deal with him.  If he tries to scam the insurance carrier, they'll hand him his butt on a paper plate.

In the end it's worth the extra $50-$60 per month.

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, pwrfrk said:

This is why I have better than normal coverage.  Sure, the law says all I must have, but...is that really sufficient?  Is it right?  Is it moral?  Is it ethical?  You tell me.

I can, OTOH, spend an extra $50-60 a month and have better than normal coverage.  Is that $50 or $60 I could be saving really worth "that much" to me?  Not really.  But, when everything is considered, that $50 or $60 a month may only equal around $7,200 to $8,600....if I look in retrospect, when I see what it really becomes in a serious accident is truly worth ten times it's weight in gold.  Having better than normal coverage came back to me back in 2009.  In late 2006 I was in a serious accident.  The other person, he had the state minimum, which ain't squat, for insurance.  If I had the state minimum, I would have been in for a world of major hurt.  My initial medical bills alone reached 80k.  Since then, the covered medical has paid out 130k.  State minimum is, IIRC, 5k.  When everything was over my policy and his policy forked over to me close to $350,000.  That really isn't as much as I wish because I am (from that accident) permanently disabled.  But medical and lawyers are paid for. 

So have better than normal coverage.  LB, that fella wants to harass you, your insurance carrier will deal with him.  If he wants to scam you, your insurance carrier will deal with him.  If he tries to scam the insurance carrier, they'll hand him his butt on a paper plate.

In the end it's worth the extra $50-$60 per month.

I'm of the same mindset.  Having good insurance is well worth it.  

[Guest Scott]

On 10/5/2018 at 1:02 PM, Lost Boy said:

If you live in a no fault state and you drive to another state and cause an accident, your insurance will cover the other car.

What if it's the other way around?   If I only have liability insurance and drive into a no fault state and someone else hits me, would I be out of luck?   I'm just curious.  I see lots of online sources, but they don't address people with liability only insurance.  

Edited October 12, 2018 by Scott

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

What if it's the other way around?   If I only have liability insurance and drive into a no fault state and someone else hits me, would I be out of luck?   I'm just curious.  I see lots of online sources, but they don't address people with liability only insurance.  

You're not out of luck.  Your insurance is out of luck.  No-Fault doesn't mean your insurance stops working.  It simply means your insurance carrier can only demand $1,000 from the at-fault's insurance company.  Anything beyond that, your insurance company will have to cover.

That's why, most insurance companies have rules for out-of-state driving.  You'll want to make sure you know what your insurance carrier's out-of-state rules are.

 

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

What if it's the other way around?   If I only have liability insurance and drive into a no fault state and someone else hits me, would I be out of luck?   I'm just curious.  I see lots of online sources, but they don't address people with liability only insurance.  

That is a good question and probably something you should contact your insurance about.  I bet it differs from company to company, but my guess is that you would be out of luck in most cases.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

You're not out of luck.  Your insurance is out of luck.  No-Fault doesn't mean your insurance stops working.  It simply means your insurance carrier can only demand $1,000 from the at-fault's insurance company.  Anything beyond that, your insurance company will have to cover.

Liability insurance doesn't cover damage to your own vehicle, so Lost Boy is correct in that I'd be out of luck.  I called the insurance to verify.

That's kind of scary.   If you have liability insurance, in most states, it is expected that if someone else causes an accident, then their insurance would pay for the damage.   I never thought about it before, but I'd be hosed if someone else hits our car in a no-fault state.  

No fault insurance sounds like a scam to me, even if legal in some states.