Car accident, what would you do?

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

That entirely depend on what the insurance promised to do verses what you expect it to do.   If it promises to cover the value of the car that is damaged then that is what they do... if they promised to "get you on the road again" then that is a different story.  So before you can really get into the ethics of insurance you have to be clear on what is promised by them and adjust your expectations accordingly

 

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

 

Which is what I said:  he's looking for confirmation.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

That entirely depend on what the insurance promised to do verses what you expect it to do.   If it promises to cover the value of the car that is damaged then that is what they do... if they promised to "get you on the road again" then that is a different story.  So before you can really get into the ethics of insurance you have to be clear on what is promised by them and adjust your expectations accordingly

 

That is between the driver and their insurance, but how about when it is someone else.  For example, let's say I was driving and got hit by another individual.  The insurance company offers me $5000 and totals my car.  I can either take the cash or take my damaged car (at which point not only do I have to pay for repairs, but also to recertify that it is now drivable again). 

My expectation may be that I will be able to get my vehicle back, but once they total it that is out the window.  They will not compensate me for the vehicle I have lost so I can get another of the exact make and model, and to do so means money out of pocket.  It's not my insurance, but someone else's.  In that light, is the insurance company being ethical (normally they total it so that they DON'T have to pay for the repairs of the vehicle.  The excuse is that the repairs would cost more than the vehicle is worth, but as the one who lost their vehicle, I just want my vehicle back in working order).

Is it ethical to total a vehicle so the company doesn't have to pay the repair costs and give the individual the car back?

[anatess2]

25 minutes 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.

Well, he's not gonna get that confirmation from me either.

No-fault Insurance States (Florida is one) is designed to limit the amount of money an at-fault individual (or his insurer) has to pay for injuries to the other party.  This doesn't mean that you or your insurer doesn't have to pay.  It simply means, there's a limit to what the other guy (or his insurer) can demand from you in a court of law.  So that, if, say for instance you are at fault in an accident that caused the other guy to become a quadriplegic, you won't have to lose everything that you own to pay for the guy's medical bills.

But, what the other guy can sue you for is not the same as what is ethical.  Or in short - what is legal is not always ethical - like, yelling foul-mouthed abuses at your wife does not become ethical just because your free speech rights make it legal.

Therefore, if this was my daughter - I would do due diligence to determine what exactly is my daughter's fault (what she caused the guy to lose) - and then find a way to make it right without having to lose my shirt.  It could be that the guy is scamming.  Or it could be that the guy called your daughter personally because your daughter put him in dire straits and he knows he has no footing going through the insurance or court systems.  A non-scammy guy in dire straits would skimp up on insurance premiums and drive very carefully hoping he doesn't get hit by somebody's daughter.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

what is legal is not always ethical

Quote

“The ethical person should do more then he is required to do, and less than he is allowed to.”
― Michael Josephson

 

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That is between the driver and their insurance, but how about when it is someone else.  For example, let's say I was driving and got hit by another individual.  The insurance company offers me $5000 and totals my car.  I can either take the cash or take my damaged car (at which point not only do I have to pay for repairs, but also to recertify that it is now drivable again). 

My expectation may be that I will be able to get my vehicle back, but once they total it that is out the window.  They will not compensate me for the vehicle I have lost so I can get another of the exact make and model, and to do so means money out of pocket.  It's not my insurance, but someone else's.  In that light, is the insurance company being ethical (normally they total it so that they DON'T have to pay for the repairs of the vehicle.  The excuse is that the repairs would cost more than the vehicle is worth, but as the one who lost their vehicle, I just want my vehicle back in working order).

Is it ethical to total a vehicle so the company doesn't have to pay the repair costs and give the individual the car back?

This can be answered on a personal level then apply upwards to insurance companies...

If you were to personally harm someone else and there were no proxies (like insurance companies) to step in and cover things.  What would you feel responsible for/want to be held liable for?   Replacing the cash value of that which was damaged... Or replacing the function...  I can see it going either way... Chances are when it is coming out of our pocket we would want the cheaper option but the higher moral and ethical path is the more expensive one.  By default society seems to have accepted the cheaper option because it is cheaper. You do not see many (if any) people acting on the higher obligations paying more in addition to what ever insurance claims are made.  If we as individuals are not going to do it... why should we expect insurance companies to do so?

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That is between the driver and their insurance, but how about when it is someone else.  For example, let's say I was driving and got hit by another individual.  The insurance company offers me $5000 and totals my car.  I can either take the cash or take my damaged car (at which point not only do I have to pay for repairs, but also to recertify that it is now drivable again). 

My expectation may be that I will be able to get my vehicle back, but once they total it that is out the window.  They will not compensate me for the vehicle I have lost so I can get another of the exact make and model, and to do so means money out of pocket.  It's not my insurance, but someone else's.  In that light, is the insurance company being ethical (normally they total it so that they DON'T have to pay for the repairs of the vehicle.  The excuse is that the repairs would cost more than the vehicle is worth, but as the one who lost their vehicle, I just want my vehicle back in working order).

Is it ethical to total a vehicle so the company doesn't have to pay the repair costs and give the individual the car back?

A car insurance company's job is to compensate you for the loss.  This loss is calculated by the monetary value of the car prior to the accident and the cost of injury to your person.  The monetary value of a car is not determined by the extent of its damage.  It is determined by its market price when it was in working order.  Therefore, when car repairs are worth more than what that car will sell for in the market prior to the damage, then repairing the car is more than what the car insurance company promised you it will do.  Giving you the market price of that car through cash is business ethical.  You can then use that money to buy that same year/make/model of car in that same condition with that mileage as that's the market price of that car.

Now, if your question is... is $5,000 really the market price for my car... then that's a different question.  You can negotiate that amount with your car insurance company if you can prove that the car's market value is more than that.  A car company who knowingly puts the wrong market value on your car to avoid fulfilling their obligations is doing an unethical business practice.

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

A car insurance company's job is to compensate you for the loss.  This loss is calculated by the monetary value of the car prior to the accident and the cost of injury to your person.  The monetary value of a car is not determined by the extent of its damage.  It is determined by its market price when it was in working order.  Therefore, when car repairs are worth more than what that car will sell for in the market prior to the damage, then repairing the car is more than what the car insurance company promised you it will do.  Giving you the market price of that car through cash is business ethical.  You can then use that money to buy that same year/make/model of car in that same condition with that mileage as that's the market price of that car.

Now, if your question is... is $5,000 really the market price for my car... then that's a different question.  You can negotiate that amount with your car insurance company if you can prove that the car's market value is more than that.  A car company who knowingly puts the wrong market value on your car to avoid fulfilling their obligations is doing an unethical business practice.

 

Edited:  An example, (and it is taken from a real life incident), I am in a car wreck.  I had a vehicle that cost 10K to buy on the market (actually that was the low end, it went up to 15K) but the BB value is around 6K.  I get 5K from the insurance company.  The reason is that instead of repairing it, they have totaled it on the books as repairs would cost MORE than to pay out the BB value of it being totaled.  All I WANT is my vehicle back in working order.  Instead I get cash.  It is NOT enough to buy the same vehicle of the same make, model and year.

I think there are at least two opinions on this in this thread.  If one is looking at individuals and saying they need to make sure everything is compensated as it was, then no, it is NOT ethical.  Or, and adding in (for additional information that was added), if the insurance payment is for the value of the vehicle but not at the market value to avoid paying for the repairs to put in back in service, than this too is not ethical (but I find it is probably typical of what Insurance companies do).

On the otherhand there are those saying that, yes, you have paid what the vehicle is actually worth, thus it IS ethical.

In reference to the original post, the vehicle that was wrecked and the owner was demanding compensation for was, as per the BB values I looked up (using Florida) seemed to be a 1 to 1.5K trade in value and probably around a 3000 value if you total the car at a maximum.  HOWEVER...the cars being sold would cost at least 4-6K.  Thus, in one view of ethical, paying 3K is actually MORE than fair and morally and ethically one is clear.  The owner trying to extort MORE than that thus is the one in the wrong and the one being unethical.

On the otherhand, in the other view, the owner has NOT been completely recompensed.  Thus, the owner is in their own right to hope for an ethical solution and the entirety of the car to be replaced regardless of what it's current value is.

Edited September 14, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Is it ETHICAL though.  For example, (and it is taken from a real life incident), I am in a car wreck.  I had a vehicle that cost 10K to buy on the market (actually that was the low end, it went up to 15K) but the BB value is around 6K.  I get 5K from the insurance company.  The reason is that instead of repairing it, they have totaled it on the books as repairs would cost MORE than to pay out the BB value of it being totaled.  All I WANT is my vehicle back in working order.  Instead I get cash.  It is NOT enough to buy the same vehicle of the same make, model and year.

Is it ethical to do this?

I think there are at least two opinions on this in this thread.  If one is looking at individuals and saying they need to make sure everything is compensated as it was, then no, it is NOT ethical.

On the otherhand there are those saying that, yes, you have paid what the vehicle is actually worth, thus it IS ethical.

In reference to the original post, the vehicle that was wrecked and the owner was demanding compensation for was, as per the BB values I looked up (using Florida) seemed to be a 1 to 1.5K trade in value and probably around a 3000 value if you total the car at a maximum.  HOWEVER...the cars being sold would cost at least 4-6K.  Thus, in one view of ethical, paying 3K is actually MORE than fair and morally and ethically one is clear.  The owner trying to extort MORE than that thus is the one in the wrong and the one being unethical.

On the otherhand, in the other view, the owner has NOT been completely recompensed.  Thus, the owner is in their own right to hope for an ethical solution and the entirety of the car to be replaced regardless of what it's current value is.

JJ, you may have caught my response before I edited it.  If it isn't too much trouble, read through it again with the edits and see if that answers your question.

[Colirio]

Pray. I would pray and follow whatever answer I receive. Perhaps it is a scam. Perhaps not. 

 

Either way, this scripture comes to mind:

 

Matthew 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

 

This spirit of this teaching tells me that I should be full of love and serve my neighbor. While that might not always be financial service, love and concern for others is what Christ teaches. 

 

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

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)

 

I am a piece of what I did. I am not okay with the guy calling me and trying to get money out of me. That was more of my question what would you do about the guy that is trying to get money out of you.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I am a piece of what I did. I am not okay with the guy calling me and trying to get money out of me. That was more of my question what would you do about the guy that is trying to get money out of you.

Fair enough... but you are still arguing with answers you do not like.  Sound like you already have the answer of what you want to do about the guy bothering you... so much you fight against any answer that does not reinforce that idea. 

Guess what... giving the guy what he wants is a valid response to your situation ( @Colirio even posted a scripture about it)  Other people would not do that and that is good too... But you do not get to ask for opinions and then rebuke people who give you what you asked for, not without being the root cause problems come forth.

[Vort]

2 hours 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.

Then suck it up. The law is on your side, so you win. Many of us think the law is immoral, but I happen to agree that when your legal obligation in this matter is fulfilled, your ethical obligation is, too. Moral obligation? That's a different matter. Do as you like, and enjoy your legal victory. But don't think you can browbeat everyone else into agreeing with you. They won't.

A few years ago, while I was between jobs (koff, koff), I helped some friends who were a bit older and out of shape move a refrigerator. I was running around doing errands, so I threw my handtruck into the back of my Suburban and stopped by their apartment to move the fridge.They were living in the upstairs part of an up/down duplex. Their downstairs neighbors had recent bought a brand spanking new Cube (uncommonly ugly car, but bright and shiny, and I understand quite impressive inside), which they had parked in the driveway. So I put my handtruck under the fridge, pried it up, and started hustling it toward the curb. Except, oh yeah, the bulk of the weight of the fridge rests in and around the compressor, and the compressor is toward the back of the fridge, and I had the fridge on the handtruck from the side...

The fridge fell off the handtruck and bounced off of their brand new Cube.

The damage was limited to a deep scratch in the paint and a dent in the windshield frame. Not actually that visible, easily missed with a quick glance. I knew they had insurance for this brand new car, which would pay all their costs. I knew that I didn't have enough money to pay what would certainly be hundreds, if not over a thousand, dollars in damages. And I knew that, morally speaking, it was my fault. So I put the fridge out on the curb, walked to their door, knocked, and told them what had happened.

I paid about $1300 for that little fiasco. Yes, $1300, because despite the damage being localized and fairly minor, repair involved removing the windshield and essentially rebuilding the windshield frame. It's a scam, but it is what it is.

I am not better off financially for having 'fessed up. I'm not smart because I chose to do something that I didn't need to do, that didn't actually help the people who owned the car, and that simply fed into a corrupt system. But for whatever it's worth, when I stand before God and account to him for all the stupid mistakes and outright evils I have done in my life, for the hurt I have caused others, for the innocent people I have taken advantage of, for the guilty people who were nevertheless my brothers and my sisters that I might have helped but did not, for the money I accepted for work I didn't do well, for the privileges I enjoyed without thanking or even thinking of those to whom I owed gratitude -- at least there is this one small thing that I can say, "I did what i thought was right, even though it hurt."

[Jane_Doe]

7 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

So what would you do in this situation? 

My home state is a no-fault-state and the following is a very common scam: person drives a cheaper car (4-8k) with no insurance (which is totally illegal), and then purposely slams on their brakes in a place they know people follow to close (like round-about which freak people out around here).  A dented trunk requires body work to fix, which is expensive so that dent actually totals the car, which they guilt the victim into paying for--- despite the fact that they are legally completely in the wrong here.  The car of course is still perfectly useable so they just pocket the money.  The scam's victim is usually a young women because they are seen to be more manipulatable in this regard.  

So while I don't have a crystal ball to speak to specifics in your situation, I would be very suspicious from what you described to me.  Frankly, this is why you have insurance: let those evil goons deal with this for you. 

Edited September 14, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[zil]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

I threw my handtruck into the back of my Suburban

What are you, Mormon!? (Er, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?)  There was Jell-O involved later in the story, wasn't there?

Edited September 14, 2018 by zil

[zil]

56 minutes ago, Vort said:

The fridge fell off the handtruck

PS: Ratchet straps are your friends.   (Not only do they hold the fridge on the handtruck, but if the handtruck tires go flat, you run the ratchet strap around the circumference of the tire, ratchet it tight until the tire is pressed against the rim, and start filling.  Once they're full enough to hold air on their own, you take the strap off and fill them the rest of the way.  Hooray for dads!)

Edited September 14, 2018 by zil

[Vort]

Just now, zil said:

PS: Ratchet straps are your friends.   (Not only do they hold the fridge on the handtruck, but if the handtruck tires go flat, you run the ratchet strap around the circumference of the tire, ratchet it tight until the tire is pressed against the rims, and start filling.  Once they're full enough to hold air on their own, you take the strap off and fill them the rest of the way.  Hooray for dads!)

Thanks for that hot tip. Where were you six years ago?

[zil]

Just now, Vort said:

Thanks for that hot tip. Where were you six years ago?

Filling up the tire on my handtruck?  (After complaining to dad that I was gonna have to get a new handtruck.  Did I mention: Hooray for dads! ?)

[Lost Boy]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Well, he's not gonna get that confirmation from me either.

No-fault Insurance States (Florida is one) is designed to limit the amount of money an at-fault individual (or his insurer) has to pay for injuries to the other party.  This doesn't mean that you or your insurer doesn't have to pay.  It simply means, there's a limit to what the other guy (or his insurer) can demand from you in a court of law.  So that, if, say for instance you are at fault in an accident that caused the other guy to become a quadriplegic, you won't have to lose everything that you own to pay for the guy's medical bills.

But, what the other guy can sue you for is not the same as what is ethical.  Or in short - what is legal is not always ethical - like, yelling foul-mouthed abuses at your wife does not become ethical just because your free speech rights make it legal.

Therefore, if this was my daughter - I would do due diligence to determine what exactly is my daughter's fault (what she caused the guy to lose) - and then find a way to make it right without having to lose my shirt.  It could be that the guy is scamming.  Or it could be that the guy called your daughter personally because your daughter put him in dire straits and he knows he has no footing going through the insurance or court systems.  A non-scammy guy in dire straits would skimp up on insurance premiums and drive very carefully hoping he doesn't get hit by somebody's daughter.

 

 

Yes, no fault only applies to the vehicles themselves.  If you own a vehicle and it was being driven at the time of the accident, you are responsible to take care of the damages to your car whether that be through insurance coverage or out of pocket.

I do not carry comprehensive coverage on two of my vehicles because they are not worth much.  I know that if they are hit, I am only going to get $1000 from the person that hit them.  That is the gamble that I take by not having comprehensive insurance on them.  I would not not go to the person that caused the accident to get money out of him.  That would not be ethical.  I didn't pay for the coverage so that is on me.  That is the way the rules of the game are set up in this state.

He knew the rules.  He gambled and lost and now wants someone else to foot the bill.

Now I have been hit in the past and on one occasion I knew the damage done to my car could be repaired for around $600, if I handled things myself instead of going through my insurance.  Going through insurance would have cost $1500 and would have required a police report which would have jacked up his rates.  I offered to take my car to the repair shop and let him pay the repair shop directly to avoid everything.  He jumped on that and all was good.

The laws are there so everyone knows the rules to play by.  He played by the same rules and tried to save some money.  He got his money, but doesn't want to accept the results of his choices.  I have accepted the results of the choices and have followed the rules.  That to me is ethical.

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.

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, zil said:

What are you, Mormon!? (Er, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?)  There was Jell-O involved later in the story, wasn't there?

The preferred term is now is worshipwithus.

[Lost Boy]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

My home state is a no-fault-state and the following is a very common scam: person drives a cheaper car (4-8k) with no insurance (which is totally illegal), and then purposely slams on their brakes in a place they know people follow to close (like round-about which freak people out around here).  A dented trunk requires body work to fix, which is expensive so that dent actually totals the car, which they guilt the victim into paying for--- despite the fact that they are legally completely in the wrong here.  The car of course is still perfectly useable so they just pocket the money.  The scam's victim is usually a young women because they are seen to be more manipulatable in this regard.  

So while I don't have a crystal ball to speak to specifics in your situation, I would be very suspicious from what you described to me.  Frankly, this is why you have insurance: let those evil goons deal with this for you. 

That has been going through my mind since I spoke with the guy.  It makes a lot of sense.

Really the only unethical thing I have seen in this is the guy calling me up and threatening to sue me if I didn't pay him.  That to me is pretty unethical.

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Really the only unethical thing I have seen in this is the guy calling me up and threatening to sue me if I didn't pay him.  That to me is pretty unethical.

The worse he can do is carry through on the threat (which he'll most probably loose because that's the law).   Don't let his bark scare you.

[Lost Boy]

34 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The worse he can do is carry through on the threat (which he'll most probably loose because that's the law).   Don't let his bark scare you.

That is my thought as well.  if he takes me to court, I'd show that insurance settled with him and then walk out.  And probably pay a lawyer a bit of cash as well.  

[Backroads]

I sadly found this whole thread a fascinating read and even discussed it with Husband.

My thoughts: 

I do find it creepy and disconcerting the car owner called your daughter. Maybe he was indeed in dire straits and decided to go through with that.

I certainly appreciate making the injured party whole. There's wisdom in there and certainly a kindness one doesn't always find with insurance.

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

I drive crappy old cars (speaking of which my car stalled three times today so I might actually finally replace it to the joy of Husband) so I don't know if I'd be too brokenhearted if someone did damage my car. I know, I know, everyone else in the world thinks more of their car than I do, but it really is just a thing so I don't know if I would be guilted by the burden of replacing a car. But again, the wisdom and kindness and godliness of helping thy neighbor. It's just Backroads thinking "it's just a stupid car because I have my crappy car in my mind here".

In this fallen world, we have insurance companies to deal with these sort of things and while they have their corruption, it's what we have.

I don't know if I'd be willing to make the other party whole just because of one phone call made inappropriately. 

 

 

[Lindy]

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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).  

Very good idea there Johnson J!  My daughter hit a Camero (with my car) years ago in a parking lot, and the other guy tried to get our insurance company pay for damage that was years old (rusty). It took a keen eye to catch that rust. 

And I will agree with those who say call your insurance company, pay through your insurance company the $1000- make sure you have documentation and then don't stress the fact that the other guy didn't want to pay for proper insurance. That is on him, not you.