Not so new anymore...

[RonDawg]

My insurance company is Travellers. They have been helpful so far. I don't need uninsured motorist coverage since I have full coverage on all my vehicles anyways. They have already told me they will fix it fully for everything but deductible. But then I cannot get diminished value from my own insurance company. It is also filed on my policy. Even though I am not at fault, I know they will increase rates. But oh well.

This situation is exactly why you need uninsured motorist coverage. You wouldn't be out your deductible if you had it.

I don't know about Colorado, but in California 1 out of 4 cars sharing the road with you are uninsured.

 

[2k1Toaster]

My insurance company is Travellers. They have been helpful so far. I don't need uninsured motorist coverage since I have full coverage on all my vehicles anyways. They have already told me they will fix it fully for everything but deductible. But then I cannot get diminished value from my own insurance company. It is also filed on my policy. Even though I am not at fault, I know they will increase rates. But oh well.

This situation is exactly why you need uninsured motorist coverage. You wouldn't be out your deductible if you had it.

I don't know about Colorado, but in California 1 out of 4 cars sharing the road with you are uninsured.

The whole thing is a scam anyways. I am sure if I had UMI my increase in premiums would again be more than my deductible now and it would still be a filed claim. And I still can't claim diminished value against my insurance. Just can't trust people today to do the right thing apparently.

Worst case scenario, I am out of pocket $500 cash and left with a severely diminished valued car. I'm still walking around, so I think I am OK with that. However I will be aggressively pursuing full reimbursement either from Progressive, or through them personally. I am not afraid of lawyers or using them to get what is rightfully mine even if the cost of pursuit is greater than the payback. I would rather them pay the full amount personally and barely cover my legal expenses than let them slide.

 

[RonDawg]

The whole thing is a scam anyways. I am sure if I had UMI my increase in premiums would again be more than my deductible now and it would still be a filed claim. And I still can't claim diminished value against my insurance. Just can't trust people today to do the right thing apparently.

Worst case scenario, I am out of pocket $500 cash and left with a severely diminished valued car. I'm still walking around, so I think I am OK with that. However I will be aggressively pursuing full reimbursement either from Progressive, or through them personally. I am not afraid of lawyers or using them to get what is rightfully mine even if the cost of pursuit is greater than the payback. I would rather them pay the full amount personally and barely cover my legal expenses than let them slide.

Since you've already filed a claim with your insurance, let them handle getting money from the other party. That's what you pay premiums for, and it's not like it's going to prevent your premiums from going up anyway.

Keep in mind that if you do win money, you'll need to reimburse your own insurer for their costs in handling your claim, minus your $500 deductible.

If the driver is uninsured, chances of you getting money out of him are slim to none. You might be able to get something out of the vehicle owner, but that depends on his financial situation too.

BTW UM Property Damage costs me less than $4 per car every 6 months. UM Bodily Injury of $100k/300k is $15 every 6 months on the Leaf. The latter is far more important to me than the loss of my $500 collision deductible.

 

[cgaydos]

That sounds like a really bad situation. You haven't mentioned your state. Here in Colorado it doesn't work that way at all. Alas, one of my kids was recently ticketed in a two-car accident so I know how it works here. The other party's insurance is working with our insurance to come to a settlement, and of course my insurance will pay the other party completely, including full deductible. I've also seen it work this way when the other party was ticketed and didn't have insurance (this was back in 1981) here in Colorado. Our insurance paid us completely without rate increase or deductible and sued the other party to recover the costs.

Good luck.

I am in Colorado.

Their insurance called me today and told me that while the car was covered, they specifically excluded the driver from the policy. And therefore it is not covered.

I then called the police officer and told them what they told me. He called Progressive and they told the officer that that just means their car gets no coverage but they have to pay my damages. He also issued a ticket for no insurance to him and was going to go deliver it to his address tonight. So tomorrow I will have to call them again and see what is actually going on.

I'm sorry to hear that. I think I'll ask my local agent (State Farm) about this because that's not they way they've explained it to me.

 

[davewill]

... I then called the police officer and told them what they told me. He called Progressive and they told the officer that that just means their car gets no coverage but they have to pay my damages. He also issued a ticket for no insurance to him and was going to go deliver it to his address tonight. So tomorrow I will have to call them again and see what is actually going on.

That doesn't sound right. If the insurance company has to pay your damages, then the driver WAS insured as far as the law cares, since you're only required to carry liability, not comprehensive coverage.

 

[RonDawg]

CO (like CA) law may still require the driver to have proof of insurance coverage while driving. He is possibly being cited for the fact that he is excluded from the owner's policy and not having his own to compensate for it.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Other driver got charged with reckless driving, which I hear is standard for a rear collision. I think it is 4points and $165 from what the officer told me.

The fun part starts now. After the morning of dealing with my insurance company and their insurance company, I find out that he isn't insured to drive that car! Woohoo. The insurance agent told me pretty bluntly that he doesn't expect his insurance (Progressive) to pay out anything. So it looks like I am on the hook with my insurance. Pay a company a couple hundred dollars a month for years and when you do nothing wrong, you get slapped with a deductible and most probably a rate increase. It is a wonder how it is even legal...

I am going to call the police department tomorrow probably and make sure to get them for driving with no insurance.

What state are you in? Because that doesn't sound right to me.

Generally, in all states I've been in where collisions were involved, if one driver is ticketed then the at-fault discussion is over. You have no deductible payment and your insurance company will chase his company for the full amount - or sue him if he has no insurance. The only exception I can think of is states where they offer uninsured driver's coverage - which means that if you get hit by an uninsured driver you pay a little extra on your policy to deal with that. Perhaps you're in one of those states.

The way it was explained to me was that I either file a claim with his insurance as a third party claimant or I file a claim with my company or I sue him. I filed a claim with his company, Progressive, which unofficially told me that he was not insured under the policy at the time of the accident so they will "most likely" deny the claim. But they still have to get his statement and get an official response to me sometime in the coming weeks.

So filing with my insurance company means I have to pay my deductible. Also I cannot claim diminished value against my own insurance company for some legal reasons. Because I am filing on my policy, I know my rates will then go up even though it is not my fault. If the insurance pays out, you pay more of a premium.

I can then sue him personally for damages. I can collect my deposit back and pocket the money as well as diminished value. If I get any extra money for the actual cost of the repair, I would be required to give the excess back to my insurance company if I understand the law properly.

The other way is to forget insurance and sue him personally for everything. He can then get his insurance company to pay him back minus deductible but the onus is on him to deal with his own company.

laws vary by state (one of many reasons why i left Michigan which is a "no fault" state) and despite what most have told you here, your state works like most of them.

your option is file against his insurance company.

file with your insurance company, pay deductible. then your insurance company will act on your behalf to go after the other driver. you may or may not get your money back.

this is how WA works and most other states. option 2 is only done as a last resort and its success rate is VERY low. I know a few people who took option 2 and got nothing back after 3+ years. but they did it because the other guy had no insurance company to go after so there was essentially no option 1.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Other driver got charged with reckless driving, which I hear is standard for a rear collision. I think it is 4points and $165 from what the officer told me.

The fun part starts now. After the morning of dealing with my insurance company and their insurance company, I find out that he isn't insured to drive that car! Woohoo. The insurance agent told me pretty bluntly that he doesn't expect his insurance (Progressive) to pay out anything. So it looks like I am on the hook with my insurance. Pay a company a couple hundred dollars a month for years and when you do nothing wrong, you get slapped with a deductible and most probably a rate increase. It is a wonder how it is even legal...

I am going to call the police department tomorrow probably and make sure to get them for driving with no insurance.

What state are you in? Because that doesn't sound right to me.

Generally, in all states I've been in where collisions were involved, if one driver is ticketed then the at-fault discussion is over. You have no deductible payment and your insurance company will chase his company for the full amount - or sue him if he has no insurance. The only exception I can think of is states where they offer uninsured driver's coverage - which means that if you get hit by an uninsured driver you pay a little extra on your policy to deal with that. Perhaps you're in one of those states.

not true. in WA, doesn't matter who gets what. an investigation still determines fault.

 

[TomT]

I'd much rather have no fault. Then, if a driver is uninsured, it is his problem, not mine... Statistically, in California, 30% of drivers are uninsured, but are involved in 55% of the accidents... I'd rather be insuring myself rather than someone else!

laws vary by state (one of many reasons why i left Michigan which is a "no fault" state) and despite what most have told you here, your state works like most of them.

 

[RonDawg]

Statistically, in California, 30% of drivers are uninsured, but are involved in 55% of the accidents...

And that number is going to grow. Effective January 1, 2016, the owner of any car that is registered within Los Angeles County, or the City and County of San Francisco, is not required to present proof of third party liability insurance in order to renew the registration. The driver of any car driven within either of those two counties is not required to present proof of insurance either in case of an accident, or if they get pulled over by a police officer. (Relevant sections are 16020.1 and 16020.2 CVC respectively.)

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I'd much rather have no fault. Then, if a driver is uninsured, it is his problem, not mine... Statistically, in California, 30% of drivers are uninsured, but are involved in 55% of the accidents... I'd rather be insuring myself rather than someone else!

laws vary by state (one of many reasons why i left Michigan which is a "no fault" state) and despite what most have told you here, your state works like most of them.

No fault was not popular because it raises rates for everyone which penalized good drivers unfairly. Although getting an uninsured driver rider on your policy does have its caveats, it still a much better and cheaper solution.

 

[TomT]

It depends greatly on location of course, by every research result here in CA showed that it would drop rates for most good drivers since it would be based entirely on your own record, location and usage... UI is only a band-aid on the problem...

No fault was not popular because it raises rates for everyone which penalized good drivers unfairly. Although getting an uninsured driver rider on your policy does have its caveats, it still a much better and cheaper solution.

 

[dgpcolorado]

We had no fault here in Colorado for many years but awhile back the lawyers in the legislature replaced it with the traditional lawsuit model of insurance. The idea was to lower insurance costs (and increase earnings for lawyers). Yes, my insurance cost dropped a smidge but then I had to buy an umbrella policy to cover myself in the case of an accident-related lawsuit. Over all it cost quite a bit more. But I suppose that I am also protected by the umbrella policy if a house guest should happen to get eaten by a mountain lion. Whoopee.

Last I heard, many years ago, the Michigan insurance model was widely viewed by experts as the most efficient and cost-effective. Don't know if that's still the case.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

It depends greatly on location of course, by every research result here in CA showed that it would drop rates for most good drivers since it would be based entirely on your own record, location and usage... UI is only a band-aid on the problem...

No fault was not popular because it raises rates for everyone which penalized good drivers unfairly. Although getting an uninsured driver rider on your policy does have its caveats, it still a much better and cheaper solution.

Ya same story in MI... but did not work out that way. Guessing I we can both figure out who paid for that research...