Car accident, what would you do?

[Lost Boy]

My daughter was in an accident where she was at fault. I live in a no fault state so we are each responsible for having insurance to cover our own cars. 

The guy who was driving the other car was not the owner of the car. He was the brother. The car that was hit was a '06 daville. 

So we don't know how, but the owner of the other car got my daughter's cell number and called her. Not cool. She gave him my phone number. 

He called me asking how I was going to pay for the damages. As I am living in a no fault state, I am only liable for $1000.  Anything above and beyond is his responsibility. 

He claimed that because his brother was driving that his insurance would not cover the cost and that he would have to deal with me directly. He stated that he needed $5k to cover the damages. 

To me this smells very much a scam. If he decided to not cover his vehicle, that is his problem, not mine. And we have no idea how he got my daughter's cell number. That is a bit creepy. 

So what would you do in this situation? 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

15 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

To me this smells very much a scam. If he decided to not cover his vehicle, that is his problem, not mine. And we have no idea how he got my daughter's cell number. That is a bit creepy. 

So what would you do in this situation? 

I would call my insurance company and talk to them about it.  They will be the most knowledgable about the laws in your state, and what you may be responsible for or NOT.  As you said, it sounds like you are not.  Then if there is any responsibility on your part ($1000?) then let your insurance company be the mediator.  Let the other party know that he needs to work through the insurance companies and NOT contact you directly.    That's what I would do. 

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

My daughter was in an accident where she was at fault. I live in a no fault state so we are each responsible for having insurance to cover our own cars. 

The guy who was driving the other car was not the owner of the car. He was the brother. The car that was hit was a '06 daville. 

So we don't know how, but the owner of the other car got my daughter's cell number and called her. Not cool. She gave him my phone number. 

He called me asking how I was going to pay for the damages. As I am living in a no fault state, I am only liable for $1000.  Anything above and beyond is his responsibility. 

He claimed that because his brother was driving that his insurance would not cover the cost and that he would have to deal with me directly. He stated that he needed $5k to cover the damages. 

To me this smells very much a scam. If he decided to not cover his vehicle, that is his problem, not mine. And we have no idea how he got my daughter's cell number. That is a bit creepy. 

So what would you do in this situation? 

If my child caused loss to another, I would make that person whole.  The fault is 100% mine and nobody else's.

[Lost Boy]

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If my child caused loss to another, I would make that person whole.  The fault is 100% mine and nobody else's.

The law here is that you insure your own car and your insurance is to cover the loss.  If you choose to decline collision insurance, that is on the owner of the car regardless of who is at fault.  If he didn't have his car covered, that is on him, not me.

I am 90% sure this was a scam.  Jamming on his breaks to intentionally cause an accident and try and extort money out of us.  Unfortunately, this is not uncommon around here.  Still it was my daughters fault for driving to close.  That is on her and she is paying for the mistake.

If it isn't a scam, I do feel bad for him a bit, but still his choice not to insure his car.  One cannot live in a no-fault state and expect the other person to pay damages that are by law your responsibility.

[zil]

26 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If my child caused loss to another, I would make that person whole.  The fault is 100% mine and nobody else's. 

This - whether that's through insurance, or out-of-pocket, or some combo.  Also, this doesn't mean you don't do due diligence to ensure you're not being scammed (e.g. claiming it was $5000 in damage when it was really $2500, or claiming their insurance doesn't cover anything when it does, or whatever).  I would think, like LP said, your insurance company should be able to help you figure these things out.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

The law here

I think Grunt is less concerned about the law and more concerned about the ethics / morality of the situation - same with me - there's the legal side, and the ethical side (and due diligence, of course).

 

[Grunt]

10 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

The law here is that you insure your own car and your insurance is to cover the loss.  If you choose to decline collision insurance, that is on the owner of the car regardless of who is at fault.  If he didn't have his car covered, that is on him, not me.

I am 90% sure this was a scam.  Jamming on his breaks to intentionally cause an accident and try and extort money out of us.  Unfortunately, this is not uncommon around here.  Still it was my daughters fault for driving to close.  That is on her and she is paying for the mistake.

If it isn't a scam, I do feel bad for him a bit, but still his choice not to insure his car.  One cannot live in a no-fault state and expect the other person to pay damages that are by law your responsibility.

There is a law on the books that requires collision and comprehensive, or liability?  I know of no state that requires collision and comprehensive.

6 minutes ago, zil said:

I think Grunt is less concerned about the law and more concerned about the ethics / morality of the situation - same with me - there's the legal side, and the ethical side (and due diligence, of course).

 

Exactly.

[JohnsonJones]

I would call the insurance company.  In this he has the rights to call the insurance company and bring legalities in regards to them.  If he was driving in a No Fault State without insurance, that can be problematic since normally No-Fault states made those laws in the first place to curtail lawsuits.  Thus, his ability to sue is limited. 

IF he gave you a call, refer him to your insurance and tell them legally he needs to deal with them first.  If he persists, refer to a lawyer in your state on the law, but most likely they will tell you that he can take you to court on LEGAL items, but on certain items he CANNOT do so (normally medical, but it varies from state to state that have these laws).  If he chooses to harass you instead of doing it the legal method, call the police.  If your daughter had insurance she did as she was supposed to as per the law and that is the legal entity he is dealing with.  If he does NOT like how much they are going to pay him, then he has legal options to sue. 

In this instance, if he chooses to sue you instead of them, it normally will cost you money, but the likelihood of him winning are not good.  Depending on what he sues over, it may also be illegal for him to do so. 

If your daughter did not have insurance either that can be more difficult.  As you have then excised the legal entities that would normally be taking care of it between themselves, I would probably do what I could to make the matter whole between us.  I would pay him NO cash.

I would ask that he takes it to a vendor that we both agreed upon to assess the damages and repairs.  MAKE SURE that the damages are those that were actually CAUSED by the accident (this is why you have insurance people because sometimes people claim damages from accidents that were not actually from that accident).  Pictures from the actual accident would be nice if he is going that route (and would help greatly in court if he took you to court on that behalf). 

First thing that pops up is that there does not seem to be a 2006 Cadillac Deville on KBB, it appears the last year was 2005.  That raises an alarm bell for me.  However, there IS the 2006 DTS model.  It looks like they are being sold between 4,000 and 6,000 dollars. I went to KBB and entered in the price for one in Florida that was in EXCELLENT condition (only around 3% qualify for that so doubtful, but giving benefit of the doubt), and the highest price available (4D) and got that a trade in value was between $1000 to around $1500 about.  I'd say the insurance would only give him at max $3000 and then total his car.  If that's the case, he's trying to bypass insurance.

In a No-Fault State (depends on the state as laws vary) by trying to bypass the laws in place he may actually be committing a crime by trying to extort more money.  It is dependent on the situation.  Extortion is not normally smiled upon and in this instance may be prosecutable. 

This is why one normally uses insurance because people get angry and would overprice their own vehicles in that manner.  If your daughter didn't have insurance than finding out the actual worth of his vehicle probably is ALSO important.  It could also boil down that the car was totaled but his brother needs a way to travel and cannot afford a car at the prices the insurance is willing to pay.  If your daughter didn't have insurance and this is the case, it may be they might be mollified by just getting a car they can use. 

AS I said, I'd call the my insurance company and tell them what happened and get their advice on what to do next.  They ARE the ones he should be dealing with and why the laws of your state probably went to No-Fault.

However, if your side (daughter) was also driving without insurance it gets harder to say what you should do.  I gave you information and ideas above, but I can't really define the exact situation.  It probably would help (if she didn't have insurance, if she did, the answer is easy as we pointed out above) if we knew the exact location, make and model of the car (I suspect it's a DTS) it would be easier to get an idea of what you should actually pay and it was worth, or you can look it up the Blue Book Value.

Edited September 14, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, zil said:

I think Grunt is less concerned about the law and more concerned about the ethics / morality of the situation - same with me - there's the legal side, and the ethical side (and due diligence, of course).

 

I would argue that I am still being 100% ethical.  He saved money by not insuring his car.  By law one is responsible for their own repairs.  If he chose to save the money, he should be using that money to pay for the repairs.  If he had insurance, his insurance would pay for it.

What is unethical is to cheap out on insurance and then come and demand someone pay because you didn't put coverage on your car.

I did talk with the police just now and they suggested that I don't speak with this person again and to block his number.  They said legally he can only sue for $1000 and generally the insurance company deals with that.  I already reached out to the insurance company and they suggested the same thing.  Don't talk with him.

 

[Grunt]

Just now, Lost Boy said:

 By law one is responsible for their own repairs. 

 

 

That isn't what "no fault" means.  Your insurance will typically cover your own repairs (then they often go after the other party's insurance).  That doesn't make YOU liable for your own repairs.

[Lost Boy]

Just now, Grunt said:

There is a law on the books that requires collision and comprehensive, or liability?  I know of no state that requires collision and comprehensive.

Exactly.

Nope.  And as such it is on him to determine if he is going to cover his car, not me.  His repairs are on him.  If I lived in a state where my insurance would cover damages done to his car, then I would carry that type of coverage.  Say the guy had a $200k car and it got totalled.  If he lives in a state where each is responsible for their own repairs,  then if he didn't put coverage on his car, there is little chance anyone could cover his repairs.  It is not fair to expect that.  If you live in a state where it is expected that the at fault party pay, then it is reasonable to expect that party to pay.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I would argue that I am still being 100% ethical. 

And that is your right - but no one has to agree with you either.  Let it go.  You asked what others would do, and got your answers.  There's no point in trying to turn it into a campaign to convince others to agree with you.  It's OK for us to disagree.  If you need peace with your decision, take it to the Lord - he's the source of peace, not forum concurrence.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Nope.  And as such it is on him to determine if he is going to cover his car, not me.  His repairs are on him.  If I lived in a state where my insurance would cover damages done to his car, then I would carry that type of coverage.  Say the guy had a $200k car and it got totalled.  If he lives in a state where each is responsible for their own repairs,  then if he didn't put coverage on his car, there is little chance anyone could cover his repairs.  It is not fair to expect that.  If you live in a state where it is expected that the at fault party pay, then it is reasonable to expect that party to pay.

I think you'll find you are incorrect and are confusing PIP with collision.  That said, you should be letting your insurance company handle it.  That's why you pay them.  He'll get his money eventually.

Either way, I personally would make sure he was made whole because it's the ethical thing to do.  YMMV.

[Lost Boy]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That isn't what "no fault" means.  Your insurance will typically cover your own repairs (then they often go after the other party's insurance).  That doesn't make YOU liable for your own repairs.

Actually it does if you choose not to carry insurance.  I am only liable for $1000.  End of story.  The law states that he or his insurance is liable for any damages above $1000 if I am more than 50% at fault.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Actually it does if you choose not to carry insurance.  I am only liable for $1000.  End of story.  The law states that he or his insurance is liable for any damages above $1000 if I am more than 50% at fault.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Good luck.

[Lost Boy]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

And that is your right - but no one has to agree with you either.  Let it go.  You asked what others would do, and got your answers.  There's no point in trying to turn it into a campaign to convince others to agree with you.  It's OK for us to disagree.  If you need peace with your decision, take it to the Lord - he's the source of peace, not forum concurrence.

My conscious says not to pay the guy.  I don't have coverage on two of my vehicles with the full knowledge that if they get hit, I will be covering the loss.  That is a conscious decision on my part and his part.

[Lost Boy]

Just now, Grunt said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Good luck.

What helps is knowing that I did everything correctly.  I carried proper insurance, reported the accident, etc.  This is the ethical thing to do.

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

What helps is knowing that I did everything correctly.  I carried proper insurance, reported the accident, etc.  This is the ethical thing to do.

Yet you come here asking for what other people would do... and then you argue with them when they tell you exactly what you asked of them to tell you... That does not sound like someone at peace with their actions and choices

 

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Yet you come here asking for what other people would do... and then you argue with them when they tell you exactly what you asked of them to tell you... That does not sound like someone at peace with their actions and choices

 

I am at peace.  But when I am told that I am not doing the ethical thing. then I take issue.

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I am at peace.  But when I am told that I am not doing the ethical thing. then I take issue.

Funny when I am at peace I feel no need to ask people for their opinions about what I am doing in the first place..  Yet you did...

If you are truly at peace then walk away from this thread and do not look back because there is nothing for you here.  Every post will show that your claims of peace to be a lie (if only a lie you are telling yourself)

 

[Lost Boy]

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would call the insurance company.  In this he has the rights to call the insurance company and bring legalities in regards to them.  If he was driving in a No Fault State without insurance, that can be problematic since normally No-Fault states made those laws in the first place to curtail lawsuits.  Thus, his ability to sue is limited. 

IF he gave you a call, refer him to your insurance and tell them legally he needs to deal with them first.  If he persists, refer to a lawyer in your state on the law, but most likely they will tell you that he can take you to court on LEGAL items, but on certain items he CANNOT do so (normally medical, but it varies from state to state that have these laws).  If he chooses to harass you instead of doing it the legal method, call the police.  If your daughter had insurance she did as she was supposed to as per the law and that is the legal entity he is dealing with.  If he does NOT like how much they are going to pay him, then he has legal options to sue. 

In this instance, if he chooses to sue you instead of them, it normally will cost you money, but the likelihood of him winning are not good.  Depending on what he sues over, it may also be illegal for him to do so. 

If your daughter did not have insurance either that can be more difficult.  As you have then excised the legal entities that would normally be taking care of it between themselves, I would probably do what I could to make the matter whole between us.  I would pay him NO cash.

I would ask that he takes it to a vendor that we both agreed upon to assess the damages and repairs.  MAKE SURE that the damages are those that were actually CAUSED by the accident (this is why you have insurance people because sometimes people claim damages from accidents that were not actually from that accident).  Pictures from the actual accident would be nice if he is going that route (and would help greatly in court if he took you to court on that behalf). 

First thing that pops up is that there does not seem to be a 2006 Cadillac Deville on KBB, it appears the last year was 2005.  That raises an alarm bell for me.  However, there IS the 2006 DTS model.  It looks like they are being sold between 4,000 and 6,000 dollars. I went to KBB and entered in the price for one in Florida that was in EXCELLENT condition (only around 3% qualify for that so doubtful, but giving benefit of the doubt), and the highest price available (4D) and got that a trade in value was between $1000 to around $1500 about.  I'd say the insurance would only give him at max $3000 and then total his car.  If that's the case, he's trying to bypass insurance.

In a No-Fault State (depends on the state as laws vary) by trying to bypass the laws in place he may actually be committing a crime by trying to extort more money.  It is dependent on the situation.  Extortion is not normally smiled upon and in this instance may be prosecutable. 

This is why one normally uses insurance because people get angry and would overprice their own vehicles in that manner.  If your daughter didn't have insurance than finding out the actual worth of his vehicle probably is ALSO important.  It could also boil down that the car was totaled but his brother needs a way to travel and cannot afford a car at the prices the insurance is willing to pay.  If your daughter didn't have insurance and this is the case, it may be they might be mollified by just getting a car they can use. 

AS I said, I'd call the my insurance company and tell them what happened and get their advice on what to do next.  They ARE the ones he should be dealing with and why the laws of your state probably went to No-Fault.

However, if your side (daughter) was also driving without insurance it gets harder to say what you should do.  I gave you information and ideas above, but I can't really define the exact situation.  It probably would help (if she didn't have insurance, if she did, the answer is easy as we pointed out above) if we knew the exact location, make and model of the car (I suspect it's a DTS) it would be easier to get an idea of what you should actually pay and it was worth, or you can look it up the Blue Book Value.

Yeah, she was on our insurance.  I am pretty sure he didn't cover his car and is trying to scam me.  Anyway, I spoke with insurance and they will talk with him.

[zil]

8 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I am at peace.  But when I am told that I am not doing the ethical thing. then I take issue.

You weren't told that you weren't doing the ethical thing.  You were told that two of us consider the ethical thing to be something different from what you consider to be the ethical thing.  There's a difference.  As far as I can tell, both @Grunt and I are content to allow you to have your own opinion of "ethical" while we maintain ours.  It's starting to look like you want everyone else to agree with your definition of "ethical", and that's just not going to happen.

[Grunt]

Just now, zil said:

You weren't told that you weren't doing the ethical thing.  You were told that two of us consider the ethical thing to be something different from what you consider to be the ethical thing.  There's a difference.  As far as I can tell, both @Grunt and I are content to allow you to have your own opinion of "ethical" while we maintain ours.  It's starting to look like you want everyone else to agree with your definition of "ethical", and that's just not going to happen.

Correct. However, the title to this thread is misleading.  He asked "what would you do" then denounced anything except what HE would do. He  wasn't looking for opinions, he was looking for confirmation.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Correct. However, the title to this thread is misleading.  He asked "what would you do" then denounced anything except what HE would do. He  wasn't looking for opinions, he was looking for confirmation.

I don't know, I think he was seeing if he was on the right path.  He wanted to see if what he was doing was the correct course of action or not.

Ethically and morally I'd leave it up to the insurance.  Ethically, what the guy did was both unethical and immoral once he had the numbers to the insurance company.  IF he was offered a sum by the insurance company and was trying to extort more from someone else via threat rather than the legal means set out, it could also be a crime (seen as extortion).

I think the bigger question that has arisen in this thread is whether Insurance companies pay people an ethical amount of money to cover their losses, rather than anything relating to what @Lost Boy has done.

For example, I was in an accident a few years ago.  The insurance company would only pay about 50% of what I needed to buy another vehicle of a similar year and make.  They were correct on the BB values, but for me to get another vehicle of the same type I had to pay my own money. 

In this instance, it is not about whether the drivers were ethical in referring  it to the insurance, but whether the insurance that we have and how we have insurance do things is ethical.

[Chilean]

@Lost Boy  I kinda agree with you.  The other driver chose to have a car without the proper insurance, knowing the risk of getting hit and not having coverage.

It is his fault, not your daughters nor you, he chose to not carry insurance.

You just do your part, if you are required by your insurance to pay the $1,000 , then that's your responsibility (I would make my daughter work for it). But the other driver made his choice, but didn't think about the consequences. 

Is it the nicest thing to do? (To tell the guy: Sorry, your problem dude!)  Probably not, but it is the law in your state, and you are choosing to follow the law, and use it to protect you.  The other driver should've known better.

You're good.