i had a car accident. My wife who was driving was not at fault. I was the passenger. My 2 year old son was in backseat.Our car was totaled (it seems) and his car had minimal damage (blown tire/axel). Can the driver who ran the red light be sued?
No one was hurt. We however went to the doctor to dot our 'i's' and cross our 't's'. My wife is concerned about getting the value back for our vehicle, being that we just bought the car and owe Honda/bank. Immediatey our witness called his friend or colleague who is some legal consultant. He was basically schooling us on the 'accident' game. I don't think he was an attorney but seemed to be what's called a 'runner'.He insisted we use his "no fault" doctor to get checked out. We decided not to.
2007-10-31 14:22:55 · 11 answers · asked by jyoomoe 1 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Insurance & Registration
Depending on what state you are in, you may or may not be able to sue. Some states allow you to have a "limited tort" which means, you can't sue unless there are major injuries - which you don't seem to have.
You'll have to ask your agent, if you can sue.
Now, even if you win the lawsuit, or if their insurance company offers to pay, they are only responsible for the ACTUAL CASH VALUE of your car. If you got a bad deal, or bought a brand new car with little or no money down, you're going to owe more than the car is worth. You can get a rough idea about how much it's worth, by selecting the private party sale report at www.kbb.com. You are on the hook for interest, early payment penalties, any kind of negative equity rolled over from your trade-in, or the depreciation from when you drove it off the lot.
When in doubt, discuss this with YOUR AGENT. He'll have case specific information, and he knows your state, and your state laws, and your coverage options.
2007-10-31 15:01:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like your family may have been set up for the accident only it somehow backfired and your wife isn't at fault, whereas if she were then you'd be the one being sued for injuries that don't exist. Now, if the car that ran the red light is part of the scheme and that car is uninsured however, this is bad too. Eithe way, this 'witness' is bad news--you were smart to walk away from his 'kind' assistance.
Where there is a runner immediately onscene--not good. You definitely need to share these concerns with your insurance company and the cops if you haven't already. This guy could be part of a bigger problem endangering the lives of innocent people such as yourself. Fortunately everyone is okay.
2007-10-31 16:52:20 · answer #2 · answered by bundysmom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ease up on the puking and the accusations of dishonesty. The guy is just asking a question. He said he decided not to see a no fault doctor. He's not trying to win anything over on anybody; he just wants to know how he can come away from this not owing the bank for a car that, through no fault of his own, he doesn't have anymore.
This is one for the insurance companies to handle. If the car is indeed totalled, they will pay the bank the amount that the car is worth. If you owe the bank more, then you are responsible for the remainder.
2007-10-31 16:55:25 · answer #3 · answered by paic 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The _only_ way an attorney take your case without injuries is if your paid him/her and hourly fee (around $200-$300/hour) and you would not be able to recover those funds (it's your choice to seek legal representation... no one else needs to pay for it).
The runner wants you to seek additional medical treatment so that he can refer it to an attorney for a fee. No injury, no attorney, no commision in his pocket. He wants you to go to his "friendly" doctor as this doctor is more opted to say you are injured in order to over treat and pocket some money. Basically, it's _all_ a scam to get the insurance company to pay for an injury that does not exist (which would also put a small portion of that money in your pocket). if your considering this... keep in mind how you would feel when you accidently tap someone's car and they rake up $10,000 in medical bills and your rate are increase. People do things like this and then complain that _their_ rates are too high.
First, someone _was_ injured if you sought medical treatment. Ruling out an injury is the same as an injury.
People think they way they get paid for a loss is to file "suit". This almost never happens. You simply call his insurance company and adress your loss with them. Or if you have collision insurance you can have your carrier proocess your claim, you'd be subject to your collision deductible but then your carrier would seek recovery of that (and the money they spent) from the other person's carrier. My recommendation on this... have both carriers determine the amount they would pay and then file the claim with this one that would pay more. If your carrier will pay more, they will "ask" the other carrier to pay the higher amount, the other carrier will refuse and they will come to some type of agreement. It won't affect you at all as the full amount of your deductible will still be paid back.
You need to inform your own carier of your medical bills anyway. It sounds like you are in a no-fault state which means your own carrier will probably need to address your medial bills to a certain extent.
If you don't understand _anything_ ask your own adjuster if they would explain it.
Note: Limited tort would only apply in Michigan (for property damage). No there state I know of has such an unusual law.
2007-10-31 14:43:03 · answer #4 · answered by Todd C 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you had used the "no fault" doctor he probably would have found all kinds of medical problems you had and would be suing for millions rather than what you can end up suing for now, which is why insurance is as high as it is. depending upon the insurance company they may just reimburse you for the car and you won't have to sue at all. Also, depending upon the damage, you may even be able to get the "totaled" car back and use the money they give you to repair it. Good luck to you!!
2007-10-31 14:39:16 · answer #5 · answered by Al B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
um.. what on earth are you going to sue for?
If he has insurance.. they are going to give you the actual cash value of your car. You wont get any more or less then that and arent owed it legally. It doesnt matter what you owe to the bank- legally you are only owed the value of the car- you cant just "sue" for more.
His insurance will also pay your REASONABLE medical expenses.
What..do you think you won the lottery or something? What on earth else are you going to sue for?
2007-10-31 15:53:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a police report was filed and the other driver was recognized as "at fault" then their insurance company would be the one to cover the damages.
If the other driver has no insurance to cover the damages, then you can sue the driver.
2007-10-31 14:29:02 · answer #7 · answered by dweebrgurl 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If a public state owned semi truck collides into a civilian's car and kills the civilian, should the public worker, who was driving the government owned semi truck, have his driving knowledge checked and reassessed with a written and verbal test?
2016-12-02 12:30:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the car was financed, you must have collision and comprehensive coverage. I'm assuming the vehicle is not repaiurable, so your financer will receive a check for the book value of the car (you will be responsible for any shortfall!), which is why you should contact an attorney OF YOUR CHOICE. Good luck!
2007-10-31 14:29:34 · answer #9 · answered by Kiffin # 1 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Who and why are you going to sue? People like you make me puke...you just think you hit the lottery. The only one that makes any money out of a two-bit claim like this will be your scum bag lawyer. I hope you two will be happy together for the next two years....
2007-10-31 15:03:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋