OCC drivers can't help themselves but ruin their cars...

[SpikeSoprano]

The way it works is your insurance company gets the money from the car's owner's insurance company, then it's up to the owner's insurance co. to sue the owner because he had no bussiness lending his car to her if she wasn't covered. As for personal injury every state has different laws.

[Onion]

For personal injury, Florida is a no-fault state. My insurance covers up to 80% of my personal injury. However, the other party (not sure if its the owner or driver yet) has to cover the rest of my medical bills.

[Waco]

I see no problem suing someone driving a car thats not insured when they drive it and they run a red light and ruin my car and potentially hurt/kill me. I think people that sue over things like McDonald's making them fat or because they cut themselves on broken glass in the house they were breaking into should kill themselves.

The driver is insured and Onion's insurance company covers him even if they don't (underinsured/uninsured coverage). Right?

 

For personal injury, Florida is a no-fault state. My insurance covers up to 80% of my personal injury. However, the other party (not sure if its the owner or driver yet) has to cover the rest of my medical bills.

The rest? Why? Their insurance should cover that...but if not is that last 20% really worth the hassle (and costs) of a court case?

[Onion]

The rest? Why? Their insurance should cover that...but if not is that last 20% really worth the hassle (and costs) of a court case?

 

Because Florida is a no-fault state for injuries, that's just how the system works here. The insurance company explained it to me. It may be absolute BS, since it was the other company, but I'll look into it when I have time.

 

Yes. Because 'MERICA!

 

Seriously though. Its not all completely certain etc yet. We're still figuring out how the lady is covered, who the owner is, etc. Once all that's done, and we have the police report, we can escalate it if we have to.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Onion

[Coors]

The driver is insured and Onion's insurance company covers him even if they don't (underinsured/uninsured coverage). Right?

 

Depends on his insurance policy. And the way I understood it was that the car is insured but not for the lady that was actually driving the car. If so then the other person's insurance wouldn't be required to pay jack. But it varies State to State so he's best off doing what his lawyer advises.

 

 

 

Just saw this on wiki too:

 

Litigating an uninsured motorist claim

 

Most states require that you sue the uninsured motorist (or a fictitious John Doe hit and run driver when litigating the second category of uninsured motorist claim) for your injuries in order to prevail on a breach of contract action against your insurance carrier. Some states such as Virginia require that you actually obtain a judgment against the uninsured motorist (while serving your uninsured motorist carrier in the lawsuit so that your carrier can defend the suit) and then demand payment from the uninsured motorist carrier prior to suing your carrier for any breach of an uninsured motorist provision. Normally there is no need to sue the carrier in such states as Virginia unless there is a dispute as to coverage. Liability is rarely an issue in cases against John Doe defendants, and in any regard, must be litigated in the first suit against the John Doe, if at all. The insurance company will ordinarily pay the judgment, up to your policy limits, once a court determines that an uninsured motorist was at fault. Some states laws also allow additional insurance coverage to the insured policy holder through policy stacking provisions, whereby a claim may be made against multiple uninsured motorist policies.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Coors

[Waco]

Depends on his insurance policy. And the way I understood it was that the car is insured but not for the lady that was actually driving the car. If so then the other person's insurance wouldn't be required to pay jack. But it varies State to State so he's best off doing what his lawyer advises.

Well then Onion's insurance should pay it and that should be the end of it.

 

But yeah, if he's already got a lawyer, it's probably best to listen to them. I know for my insurance no matter who hits me I get the money I need.

[Onion]

I don't have collision insurance. They wanted nearly 3500 a year, on a car I paid 6000 for.

[IVIYTH0S]

I'm French and I'm more American than you in this sense.

And but it's the same "American" that France and other countries hate us for

 

I wouldn't sue the owner of the car since that's like him lending his crossbow and the woman accidentally impaling your arm with a shot bolt, how is the crossbow owner's fault that it happened, she was 100% in control and at fault. He didn't say "psst, shoot Onion in the arm with this so I won't be at fault"

 

As for her being uninsured, you can sue her from there to alaska IMHO. I canNOT stand uninsured drivers getting any special treatment since the rest of us have bend over to paying insurance, they shouldn't get off easy at all!! Ideally you should just "pay" the insurance company a certain amount like $5000 max and then no more until you have an accident and have to use that money...then if it's more the extra money loaned by the insurance company should be paid back by you with a small interest over time...

[Stonerboy779]

As for her being uninsured, you can sue her from there to alaska IMHO. I canNOT stand uninsured drivers getting any special treatment since the rest of us have bend over to paying insurance, they shouldn't get off easy at all!! Ideally you should just "pay" the insurance company a certain amount like $5000 max and then no more until you have an accident and have to use that money...then if it's more the extra money loaned by the insurance company should be paid back by you with a small interest over time...

Uninsure for that car maybe not wholly uninsured but maybe wholly uninsured.

 

However her in aus i think things are done right with the way excesses work if you are in an accident in an insured vehicle.

If you are nominated the excess is usually rather small (excess only being there if you are at fault) that is just the standard excess, then there are some factors that change your standdard excess and they are really just you rating and how long you have been insure no claims etc.

 

After that the next big excess is age excess if you are under a certain age you have to pay more if you claim.

 

Then there is the non nominated driver excess for those people that are not nominated on the insurance. I am not nominated on my parents insurances because if I was it would cost them an extra $500 a year which is coincidentally how much i would have to pay extra if i do have an accident in one of their cars so it is best if they don't nominate me.

 

With insurance systems set up this way it is very rare that you run into any major problems if you are involved in an accident regardless of what/who's car you are driving. No need to go around suing every time something happens.

 

Furthermore insurance gets even better with really only two options for the most part. Fully comp insurance which means pay your excess and whatever happened don't worry about a thing. Then 3rd party fire and theft something no one should be on the road without. If you screw up you pay your excess and everything is fine with whoever you hit but your car is your own problem which makes this good insurance for older cars that are no longer worth the fully comp insurance.

[IVIYTH0S]

Uninsure for that car maybe not wholly uninsured but maybe wholly uninsured.

 

However her in aus i think things are done right with the way excesses work if you are in an accident in an insured vehicle.

If you are nominated the excess is usually rather small (excess only being there if you are at fault) that is just the standard excess, then there are some factors that change your standdard excess and they are really just you rating and how long you have been insure no claims etc.

 

After that the next big excess is age excess if you are under a certain age you have to pay more if you claim.

 

Then there is the non nominated driver excess for those people that are not nominated on the insurance. I am not nominated on my parents insurances because if I was it would cost them an extra $500 a year which is coincidentally how much i would have to pay extra if i do have an accident in one of their cars so it is best if they don't nominate me.

 

With insurance systems set up this way it is very rare that you run into any major problems if you are involved in an accident regardless of what/who's car you are driving. No need to go around suing every time something happens.

 

Furthermore insurance gets even better with really only two options for the most part. Fully comp insurance which means pay your excess and whatever happened don't worry about a thing. Then 3rd party fire and theft something no one should be on the road without. If you screw up you pay your excess and everything is fine with whoever you hit but your car is your own problem which makes this good insurance for older cars that are no longer worth the fully comp insurance.

Nice, I can dig all that

[Waco]

I don't have collision insurance. They wanted nearly 3500 a year, on a car I paid 6000 for.

There's a good reason for that. You found it already.

[gebraset]

Like Waco said, this just doesn't seem too right. A person not on the insurance, with a verbal agreement with the owner of the vehicle, can legally drive the vehicle under the owner's insurance. They are not considered uninsured. You don't insure people, you insure vehicles.

 

Of course, if she was driving the vehicle frequent, say 50 miles a week, then she would need to be added to the policy as an additional driver for the car. But if she is driving the vehicle say, once a week, then she just needs verbal agreement from the owner. This is the way I have always had it explained to me, from Nationwide, to State Farm, to Progressive.

 

Maybe I'm incorrect, but it just doesn't seem right to call that person/vehicle "uninsured" when the vehicle and the owner actually are. I've never heard of having to get a written agreement, and tell the insurance company about it.

 

For an example, if you drove you and your spouse to a party and you drank but she didn't, of course, she would drive. But if you are the only one on the insurance (Say you both are planning a divorce, and seperated your coverage) and she drives, then she is uninsured? Doesn't make sense. What about your mom, dad, sister, brother, they are all uninsured because you let them drive one time? Nonsense in my humble opinion.