9 ms·

Side story about how satisfied people can be with the mandated insurance. I was on coast-to-coast road trip when I got into an accident in TX. Someone was tryi

Side story about how satisfied people can be with the mandated insurance. I was on coast-to-coast road trip when I got into an accident in TX. Someone was trying to pass me on the left in a turning lane, veered into the incoming lane, and then hit my vehicle's front wheels from the back. The police ticketed the other driver, and told me that insurance will surely take care of that on my side. "Wow, it's worse than we thought", they said, looking at the footage from the security camera. There were eyewitnesses too. Now, this was a $6K car (used Fiat 500) that I got specifically for the road trip, intending to resell it in the future. I didn't get comprehensive coverage for it, figuring that if I damage it, welp, it's on me; and if someone else does — that's why we have mandated liability insurance, right? ...I got zero ($0.00, zlich, nada) from the other driver's liability insurance. They informed me that their expertise concluded that the accident was my fault, and, by law, they don't have to abide by the police report. That's to say, the only way to get any money from them is to sue them, in TX. Figuring that the car is registered in California, and the damage was about $3K, they decided to not pay me anything at all. Because they can. Now, if I had comprehensive coverage, they'd be facing my insurance company — because one of those has to pay up. But they're facing me, so I'm welcome to sue or get shafted (with a nice side of gaslighting from the insurance agent, who was very convincing about how I should trust their assessment). The whole thing is a scam.

gizmo686 5y ago
Whats the scam? The insurance company was hired to provide insurance for the other driver. By all accounts they did so. If the other driver had no insurance, your options would have been the same: hope they pay out of good will, or sue them. The public policy motivation for liability insurance is to protect the lawsuit route. If you sue an uninsured driver and win, you might not be able to collect (getting blood from a stone). But if they have liability insurance you can collect on a judgement. You choose to drive with only liabilty insurance, and are upset that insurance didn't cover an accident when you had no liability.
- AQuantized 5y ago
  The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault, their insurance should pay out to those they damaged. The reality is that may only happen if you have an entity of similar magnitude to go to bat for you. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to not get comprehensive insurance, but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault But that's the thing. The other driver was only declared "at fault" by the police report, which might hold some weight, but isn't the final say. >but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit. what would that entail?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. Even without insurance or greater wealth, a party from whom you believe a liability should exist who has no interest in paying could have done the same thing here. If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist. > but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit. Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process.
    - gizmo686 5y ago
      > Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process. Not nessasarily. The 'additional weight' could still be something that requires a suit to take advantage of directly, but which the threat of compels behavior. For example, many localities have rental laws that compel the landlord to pay thrice what they would otherwise owe in certain circumstances. E.G. if my landlord simply refuses to refund my security deposit without proper reason, or without following proper procedures within 45 days, then I can sue for 3x the deposit and attorny fees. A similar thing can be implemented for vehicular damages. Something along the lines of: 1) If you are found liable and 2) Were given adaquete notice and oppurtunity to pay and 3) Ought to have known you were liable Then the defendent is entitled to punitive damages for your making them take you to court. You don't even have to go as far as most tenent laws go. You could allow for a loosing defendent to argue that there defense was reasonable, (or reasonable given evidence available to them at the time), and that they should therefore not owe punitive damages. Of course, this still is only tangentially related to insurance.
- SilasX 5y ago
  No, he’s (reasonably) upset that the other side’s insurance did not pay out when it was clearly their client’s fault, banking on his difficulty of filing a lawsuit. What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him?
  - gruez 5y ago
    That doesn't really seem to be an issue with insurance per se. In a world without insurance, you could still have people refusing to pay even if it's "clearly" their fault.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It is a problem with the insurance, as it would be for anyone else. Shitty tactics are not exclusive to insurance, but that doesn't negate their actions, or the expectation that they should perform better.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him? A for-profit business. Sure, unequal, wealth-gated practical access to the courts is a real problem, and it impacts basically every area of American society. But it doesn't make mandatory auto liability insurance a scam, any more than it makes literally every commercial industry a scam.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam, not that the concept of requiring liability insurance is a scam. Looking back, the original post's comment on that point was a final aside that was ambiguous. But my defense is of the charitable interpretation of that remark. Any auto liability insurance system should be written to avoid that kind of gaming.
      - gruez 5y ago
- explodingman 5y ago
  > The public policy motivation for liability insurance is to protect the lawsuit route. A friend of mine had the same experience from the other side. She ran into some guy's car, apologised for her mistake and told him not to worry because she was fully covered. The first sign that something wasn't right was when a summons to appear at the magistrate's court appeared in the letter box. She asked the insurance company what was going on and they said "just send the paper work to us and don't worry, we'll take care of it". Then she got a knock on the door from a pair of court-appointed officers who were there to discuss her financial situation and assist her in arranging a payment plan to pay off her fine. Her insurance company had not sent a representative to the trial, so the magistrate found in favour of the only party that had turned up. After some screaming on the phone, the insurance company paid the full amount of the judgement. Any judge worth his salt will understand the global implications (courts clogged with litigants, inability of poor people to use cars) if insurance companies stonewall when their client is at fault, whatever the odd lot who comment in HN think. The judge should hit the other party. Bear in mind that this is a matter of public interest and romwell has not signed an NDA. S/He should name that insurance company!
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The judge should hit the other party. What judge? The whole scenario is around a party who was not willing to go to court. There's no judge involved.
    - explodingman 5y ago
      The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. A person cannot ignore a court summons, not even in Texas. The judge will know that the other driver's insurance will ultimately pay, so he can punish the insurance company for its intransigence by putting a heavy financial penalty onto the other driver.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. Yes, that's how you formally sue in an accident. It's not the hack you think it is, though, the insurance company defends the lawsuit, that's part of the insurance agreement. It's also specifically what OP was unwilling to do which resulted in the insurance company not paying, and why any “the judge should...” is missing the point. If there was even the slightest expectation there would be a judge, the insurance company would have likely paid without batting an eye.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > You choose to drive with only liabilty insurance, and are upset that insurance didn't cover an accident when you had no liability. Seems clear to me he's upset the other driver's liability insurance isn't covering the accident in a case where law enforcement and others see clear liability for that other driver, and other driver's insurer's reasons seem to more or less amount to "you haven't legally compelled me to pay yet, and probably won't."
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > Seems clear to me he's upset the other driver's liability insurance isn't covering the accident in a case where law enforcement and others see clear liability for that other driver, So? Law enforcement officer's testimony isn't a court judgement. You can't seriously expect anyone to pay you if all you have is some testimony[1] that they owe you money. Testimony is worthless until it is admitted into evidence in court. Keep that in mind and you expectations will be in line with the harsh realities, and then you won't be confused and disappointed about the outcomes. [1] Testimony, even from a LEO, isn't a fact. During a matter in court, testimony that concludes that one party is at fault may be disputed by testimony that concludes that the other party (or no one at all) was at fault. In auto accidents it is not unusual for a court to decide that the liability is shared between the parties (50/50, 70/30, etc) - "Sure, the other guy swerved into you, and he really should have checked his blind-spot before performing the lane-change, but should you have really been overtaking in the slow lane? He should have checked his blind-spot, but you should have not accelerated into his blind spot in the first place."
extr 5y ago
It sounds like you were just cheap, didn't want to purchase comprehensive coverage, then that came back to bite you. This sucks, but is hardly a scam. Even worse, it sounds like you even understood what comprehensive coverage does (cover 1st party physical damage regardless of situation), and consciously chose not to buy it, assuming that anything that would possibly happen to the vehicle would be someone else's fault. Terrible assumption on a cross country road trip. You would have been equally fucked if you hit a deer, spun out in a rain storm and hit a median, popped a tire and ran into a ditch, etc.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- peregren 5y ago
  If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? Because the "other party is 100% at fault" is actually determined by courts, rather than the cops, hence the need for lawsuit.
  - extr 5y ago
    It does suck that in OP's case they caught the wrong end of this. But again, that's why you carry your own insurance with your own coverage. You're not just paying for the literal indemnification of auto damages, you're paying for the cost of litigating and proving facts in court in various hypothetical scenarios. As the other poster said, cops don't determine fault. You have to go court for that. As somewhat of an aside, since I think a lot of people don't realize this: Most of the time attempting to allocate blame in auto accidents is a massive waste of resources and time. Insurance companies usually just settle with each other before even getting to court unless the claim involves big $. Even if you were 0% at fault, your insurance company is still incurring some cost to process the claim. Their assessment of your risk is still going up (as it should). They're still going to up your premium. The whole fault concept is just not helpful to the actual functioning of the industry, most of the time. In some states they just got rid of fault altogether, for exactly this reason. > And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk. Yeah, a risk that in this case, did not pay off. So why is this guy whining all over this thread that he got "scammed" when he knew it was a risk?
Traubenfuchs 5y ago
Am I missing something here? Shouldn‘t the other driver pay you personally? And then he‘d have to hash out whether his insurance pays him that money?
- vageli 5y ago
  > Am I missing something here? > Shouldn‘t the other driver pay you personally? That still means the burden is on OP to sue the other driver since their insurance company was not paid to represent them in this type of case.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  What everyone is missing: you file a claim with your insurance company, and then they chase down the other party. If rando-joe you go to the other insurance company...yeah, of course they'll tell you "we investigated our client and found we don't have to pay you" because they're very much hoping you'll say "well shoot then" and go away. The other option is to have an attorney do it. With multiple witnesses and video footage, it's a slam-dunk case unless the driver's identity can't be established. That means a)an attorney is happy to take it on and b)the other insurance company will likely cave well before anyone even starts talking about court cases.
  - Traubenfuchs 5y ago
    Oh yeah I apparently missed the suing / negotiation effort.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> ...I got zero ($0.00, zlich, nada) from the other driver's liability insurance. Well, yeah, you didn't legally establish any liability, or even, apparently, make even the suggestion of the intent to do so. Insurance companies, being for-profit entities, aren't in the business of giving out gifts. > Now, if I had comprehensive coverage, they'd be facing my insurance company Yes, dealing with other driver's insurance companies (along with uninsured drivers) is among the more significant reasons to carry more than liability coverage. > The whole thing is a scam. I don't see a scam anywhere.
- Buge 5y ago
  >I don't see a scam anywhere. They are telling the government they will pay out if the insured party is at fault for an accident, but in some (many?) cases they don't actually pay out. That sounds like a scam to me.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > They are telling the government they will pay out if the insured party is at fault for an accident No, they aren't. They are telling the government and their customer they will pay out if the insured party is found to be legally liable for injury or property damage while driving. (That is, in exactly the situations where the customer would legally be obligated to pay.) They are also telling their customer that they will defend them from such claims to the extent reasonable, settling where it makes sense to contain liability. That is actually a big part of why one would pay for insurance rather than posting a liability bond (as most states allow) unless you have the funds to keep a general attorney on retainer and seek task-specific representation as needed. Had they paid out when there was no expectation you would establish liability, that would be a scam against their paying customer.
    - specialist 5y ago
      In this case, who is legally liable?
      - 5y ago
lostlogin 5y ago
Is there a ‘small claims’ court process in the US? Here in New Zealand there is a court process that is cheap and fairly efficient for low value claims. This sort of thing would probably sneak into that category.
- dnadler 5y ago
  Yes, there is, though the specifics vary (possibly significantly) by state
- pkaye 5y ago
  Yes there is small claims courts in the US but I think cross state lawsuits may not work in all situations. So if you are from California and are suing for an incident that happened in Texas, you would have to go the small claims court in Texas which involved time and money to travel there.
  - refurb 5y ago
    The benefits of Covid! Many switched to Zoom at least for the time being. And the idea is you sue and when they get served they just settle as it’s cheaper.
sjg007 5y ago
You can ask your insurance company to sue them, but you could also sue them in small claims court since your loss is under $15k. They generally can't send a lawyer to small claims court.
alphabettsy 5y ago
I think you mean collision coverage. Comprehensive covers non-collision accidents like theft or a tree falling on your car and is generally cheaper than full coverage which includes collision. It seems like you may have been screwed over, but also don’t completely understand how auto insurance works in most places which might be partly intentional for the industry. In most places damages to your vehicle are covered by your own insurance. You can sue the other driver and their insurance will cover them if necessary, but generally you’re only able to be reimbursed up to a certain amount which is why you need to have insurance yourself. Yea, it’s backwards and effectively forces you to have more insurance than you might otherwise want or need.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You can sue the other driver and their insurance will cover them if necessary, but generally you’re only able to be reimbursed up to a certain amount Well, you are generally (AFAIK, this is true of all US jurisdictions) legally entitled to your full actual damages if the other driver is completely responsible, but they are only required to carry a certain amount of liability insurance (or, alternatively in many cases, bond); beyond that, you are stuck collecting from them individually after securing a judgement, which may be impractical if they simply don't have the assets.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    This is incorrect in some states. Some have limits for medical liability and some have limits for property damage liability. Michigan for example. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/autoinsurance/ip206a_679993_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/autoinsurance/ip206a_6799... Beyond that, you should insure yourself sufficiently because you can’t depend on others to have adequate coverage. Doesn’t matter that you can sue if they have no money.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
DarylZero 5y ago
> Now, if I had comprehensive coverage, they'd be facing my insurance company — because one of those has to pay up. You don't need collision coverage to cover collisions that are the fault of other drivers -- just uninsured motorist coverage.
devoutsalsa 5y ago
It sucks that you couldn’t recoup any compensation, but I’m not surprised at all. You don’t have a relationship with the other person’s insurance. You have a relationship with your insurance. Your insurance covers you, and your insurance may try to collect from the other driver’s insurance company. Also, this is why auto insurance offers uninsured & underinsured riders (add ons). There’s no guarantee that some jackass who hits your car will have enough insurance or any insurance at all. Source: was an insurance agent
datavirtue 5y ago
It's easy to get a lawyer on contingency for this. Don't talk to the insurance company beyond: "I'll settle for $20k now", "Can't do that." Hang up and start calling lawyers (price just went up). They are going to want to hang injuries over them...so start getting massages and feedback from a chiropractor. You have to play the game to get compensated unfortunately. The lawyers and chiropractor know how to do the dance. Most people just get discouraged by the offending insurance compay and take it in the ass. You should be paid for your time talking to lawyers and going to get massages and dealing with all the logistics of repair, inconvenience of the accident etc. "They can" because you let them... most people don't value their time and do the the same. Great business, insurance. Another way of looking at it is that you could recover all of the money you have ever paid out for auto insurance in one settlement--zeroing out your contribution to the scam. Grind them into dust for every last penny you can pry out of their hands because they do the same to you and all of us. Forget the propaganda about "raising everyone else's rates." That's a joke. This is an industry that punishes loyal customers by raising rates every year until you notice. Then they hope you leave. They are very sensitive about people shopping around each year and always talk about discounts for people who were at their last insurance company for x consecutive years. Scam indeed.

gizmo686 5y ago

Whats the scam? The insurance company was hired to provide insurance for the other driver. By all accounts they did so. If the other driver had no insurance, your options would have been the same: hope they pay out of good will, or sue them. The public policy motivation for liability insurance is to protect the lawsuit route. If you sue an uninsured driver and win, you might not be able to collect (getting blood from a stone). But if they have liability insurance you can collect on a judgement. You choose to drive with only liabilty insurance, and are upset that insurance didn't cover an accident when you had no liability.

AQuantized 5y ago
The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault, their insurance should pay out to those they damaged. The reality is that may only happen if you have an entity of similar magnitude to go to bat for you. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to not get comprehensive insurance, but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit.
- gruez 5y ago
  >I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault But that's the thing. The other driver was only declared "at fault" by the police report, which might hold some weight, but isn't the final say. >but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit. what would that entail?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. Even without insurance or greater wealth, a party from whom you believe a liability should exist who has no interest in paying could have done the same thing here. If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist. > but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit. Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process.
  - gizmo686 5y ago
    > Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process. Not nessasarily. The 'additional weight' could still be something that requires a suit to take advantage of directly, but which the threat of compels behavior. For example, many localities have rental laws that compel the landlord to pay thrice what they would otherwise owe in certain circumstances. E.G. if my landlord simply refuses to refund my security deposit without proper reason, or without following proper procedures within 45 days, then I can sue for 3x the deposit and attorny fees. A similar thing can be implemented for vehicular damages. Something along the lines of: 1) If you are found liable and 2) Were given adaquete notice and oppurtunity to pay and 3) Ought to have known you were liable Then the defendent is entitled to punitive damages for your making them take you to court. You don't even have to go as far as most tenent laws go. You could allow for a loosing defendent to argue that there defense was reasonable, (or reasonable given evidence available to them at the time), and that they should therefore not owe punitive damages. Of course, this still is only tangentially related to insurance.
SilasX 5y ago
No, he’s (reasonably) upset that the other side’s insurance did not pay out when it was clearly their client’s fault, banking on his difficulty of filing a lawsuit. What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him?
- gruez 5y ago
  That doesn't really seem to be an issue with insurance per se. In a world without insurance, you could still have people refusing to pay even if it's "clearly" their fault.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It is a problem with the insurance, as it would be for anyone else. Shitty tactics are not exclusive to insurance, but that doesn't negate their actions, or the expectation that they should perform better.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him? A for-profit business. Sure, unequal, wealth-gated practical access to the courts is a real problem, and it impacts basically every area of American society. But it doesn't make mandatory auto liability insurance a scam, any more than it makes literally every commercial industry a scam.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam, not that the concept of requiring liability insurance is a scam. Looking back, the original post's comment on that point was a final aside that was ambiguous. But my defense is of the charitable interpretation of that remark. Any auto liability insurance system should be written to avoid that kind of gaming.
    - gruez 5y ago
explodingman 5y ago
> The public policy motivation for liability insurance is to protect the lawsuit route. A friend of mine had the same experience from the other side. She ran into some guy's car, apologised for her mistake and told him not to worry because she was fully covered. The first sign that something wasn't right was when a summons to appear at the magistrate's court appeared in the letter box. She asked the insurance company what was going on and they said "just send the paper work to us and don't worry, we'll take care of it". Then she got a knock on the door from a pair of court-appointed officers who were there to discuss her financial situation and assist her in arranging a payment plan to pay off her fine. Her insurance company had not sent a representative to the trial, so the magistrate found in favour of the only party that had turned up. After some screaming on the phone, the insurance company paid the full amount of the judgement. Any judge worth his salt will understand the global implications (courts clogged with litigants, inability of poor people to use cars) if insurance companies stonewall when their client is at fault, whatever the odd lot who comment in HN think. The judge should hit the other party. Bear in mind that this is a matter of public interest and romwell has not signed an NDA. S/He should name that insurance company!
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The judge should hit the other party. What judge? The whole scenario is around a party who was not willing to go to court. There's no judge involved.
  - explodingman 5y ago
    The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. A person cannot ignore a court summons, not even in Texas. The judge will know that the other driver's insurance will ultimately pay, so he can punish the insurance company for its intransigence by putting a heavy financial penalty onto the other driver.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. Yes, that's how you formally sue in an accident. It's not the hack you think it is, though, the insurance company defends the lawsuit, that's part of the insurance agreement. It's also specifically what OP was unwilling to do which resulted in the insurance company not paying, and why any “the judge should...” is missing the point. If there was even the slightest expectation there would be a judge, the insurance company would have likely paid without batting an eye.
wwweston 5y ago
> You choose to drive with only liabilty insurance, and are upset that insurance didn't cover an accident when you had no liability. Seems clear to me he's upset the other driver's liability insurance isn't covering the accident in a case where law enforcement and others see clear liability for that other driver, and other driver's insurer's reasons seem to more or less amount to "you haven't legally compelled me to pay yet, and probably won't."
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > Seems clear to me he's upset the other driver's liability insurance isn't covering the accident in a case where law enforcement and others see clear liability for that other driver, So? Law enforcement officer's testimony isn't a court judgement. You can't seriously expect anyone to pay you if all you have is some testimony[1] that they owe you money. Testimony is worthless until it is admitted into evidence in court. Keep that in mind and you expectations will be in line with the harsh realities, and then you won't be confused and disappointed about the outcomes. [1] Testimony, even from a LEO, isn't a fact. During a matter in court, testimony that concludes that one party is at fault may be disputed by testimony that concludes that the other party (or no one at all) was at fault. In auto accidents it is not unusual for a court to decide that the liability is shared between the parties (50/50, 70/30, etc) - "Sure, the other guy swerved into you, and he really should have checked his blind-spot before performing the lane-change, but should you have really been overtaking in the slow lane? He should have checked his blind-spot, but you should have not accelerated into his blind spot in the first place."

extr 5y ago

It sounds like you were just cheap, didn't want to purchase comprehensive coverage, then that came back to bite you. This sucks, but is hardly a scam. Even worse, it sounds like you even understood what comprehensive coverage does (cover 1st party physical damage regardless of situation), and consciously chose not to buy it, assuming that anything that would possibly happen to the vehicle would be someone else's fault. Terrible assumption on a cross country road trip. You would have been equally fucked if you hit a deer, spun out in a rain storm and hit a median, popped a tire and ran into a ditch, etc.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
peregren 5y ago
If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk.
- gruez 5y ago
  > If the other party is 100% at fault, why should they not pay for the damage they caused? Because the "other party is 100% at fault" is actually determined by courts, rather than the cops, hence the need for lawsuit.
- extr 5y ago
  It does suck that in OP's case they caught the wrong end of this. But again, that's why you carry your own insurance with your own coverage. You're not just paying for the literal indemnification of auto damages, you're paying for the cost of litigating and proving facts in court in various hypothetical scenarios. As the other poster said, cops don't determine fault. You have to go court for that. As somewhat of an aside, since I think a lot of people don't realize this: Most of the time attempting to allocate blame in auto accidents is a massive waste of resources and time. Insurance companies usually just settle with each other before even getting to court unless the claim involves big $. Even if you were 0% at fault, your insurance company is still incurring some cost to process the claim. Their assessment of your risk is still going up (as it should). They're still going to up your premium. The whole fault concept is just not helpful to the actual functioning of the industry, most of the time. In some states they just got rid of fault altogether, for exactly this reason. > And its not “cheap” to not get comprehensive insurance. Its a calculated risk. Yeah, a risk that in this case, did not pay off. So why is this guy whining all over this thread that he got "scammed" when he knew it was a risk?

Traubenfuchs 5y ago

Am I missing something here? Shouldn‘t the other driver pay you personally? And then he‘d have to hash out whether his insurance pays him that money?

vageli 5y ago
> Am I missing something here? > Shouldn‘t the other driver pay you personally? That still means the burden is on OP to sue the other driver since their insurance company was not paid to represent them in this type of case.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
What everyone is missing: you file a claim with your insurance company, and then they chase down the other party. If rando-joe you go to the other insurance company...yeah, of course they'll tell you "we investigated our client and found we don't have to pay you" because they're very much hoping you'll say "well shoot then" and go away. The other option is to have an attorney do it. With multiple witnesses and video footage, it's a slam-dunk case unless the driver's identity can't be established. That means a)an attorney is happy to take it on and b)the other insurance company will likely cave well before anyone even starts talking about court cases.
- Traubenfuchs 5y ago
  Oh yeah I apparently missed the suing / negotiation effort.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> ...I got zero ($0.00, zlich, nada) from the other driver's liability insurance. Well, yeah, you didn't legally establish any liability, or even, apparently, make even the suggestion of the intent to do so. Insurance companies, being for-profit entities, aren't in the business of giving out gifts. > Now, if I had comprehensive coverage, they'd be facing my insurance company Yes, dealing with other driver's insurance companies (along with uninsured drivers) is among the more significant reasons to carry more than liability coverage. > The whole thing is a scam. I don't see a scam anywhere.

Buge 5y ago
>I don't see a scam anywhere. They are telling the government they will pay out if the insured party is at fault for an accident, but in some (many?) cases they don't actually pay out. That sounds like a scam to me.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > They are telling the government they will pay out if the insured party is at fault for an accident No, they aren't. They are telling the government and their customer they will pay out if the insured party is found to be legally liable for injury or property damage while driving. (That is, in exactly the situations where the customer would legally be obligated to pay.) They are also telling their customer that they will defend them from such claims to the extent reasonable, settling where it makes sense to contain liability. That is actually a big part of why one would pay for insurance rather than posting a liability bond (as most states allow) unless you have the funds to keep a general attorney on retainer and seek task-specific representation as needed. Had they paid out when there was no expectation you would establish liability, that would be a scam against their paying customer.
  - specialist 5y ago
    In this case, who is legally liable?
    - 5y ago

lostlogin 5y ago

Is there a ‘small claims’ court process in the US? Here in New Zealand there is a court process that is cheap and fairly efficient for low value claims. This sort of thing would probably sneak into that category.

dnadler 5y ago
Yes, there is, though the specifics vary (possibly significantly) by state
pkaye 5y ago
Yes there is small claims courts in the US but I think cross state lawsuits may not work in all situations. So if you are from California and are suing for an incident that happened in Texas, you would have to go the small claims court in Texas which involved time and money to travel there.
- refurb 5y ago
  The benefits of Covid! Many switched to Zoom at least for the time being. And the idea is you sue and when they get served they just settle as it’s cheaper.

sjg007 5y ago

You can ask your insurance company to sue them, but you could also sue them in small claims court since your loss is under $15k. They generally can't send a lawyer to small claims court.

alphabettsy 5y ago

I think you mean collision coverage. Comprehensive covers non-collision accidents like theft or a tree falling on your car and is generally cheaper than full coverage which includes collision. It seems like you may have been screwed over, but also don’t completely understand how auto insurance works in most places which might be partly intentional for the industry. In most places damages to your vehicle are covered by your own insurance. You can sue the other driver and their insurance will cover them if necessary, but generally you’re only able to be reimbursed up to a certain amount which is why you need to have insurance yourself. Yea, it’s backwards and effectively forces you to have more insurance than you might otherwise want or need.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> You can sue the other driver and their insurance will cover them if necessary, but generally you’re only able to be reimbursed up to a certain amount Well, you are generally (AFAIK, this is true of all US jurisdictions) legally entitled to your full actual damages if the other driver is completely responsible, but they are only required to carry a certain amount of liability insurance (or, alternatively in many cases, bond); beyond that, you are stuck collecting from them individually after securing a judgement, which may be impractical if they simply don't have the assets.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  This is incorrect in some states. Some have limits for medical liability and some have limits for property damage liability. Michigan for example. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/autoinsurance/ip206a_679993_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/autoinsurance/ip206a_6799... Beyond that, you should insure yourself sufficiently because you can’t depend on others to have adequate coverage. Doesn’t matter that you can sue if they have no money.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

DarylZero 5y ago

> Now, if I had comprehensive coverage, they'd be facing my insurance company — because one of those has to pay up. You don't need collision coverage to cover collisions that are the fault of other drivers -- just uninsured motorist coverage.

devoutsalsa 5y ago

It sucks that you couldn’t recoup any compensation, but I’m not surprised at all. You don’t have a relationship with the other person’s insurance. You have a relationship with your insurance. Your insurance covers you, and your insurance may try to collect from the other driver’s insurance company. Also, this is why auto insurance offers uninsured & underinsured riders (add ons). There’s no guarantee that some jackass who hits your car will have enough insurance or any insurance at all. Source: was an insurance agent

datavirtue 5y ago

It's easy to get a lawyer on contingency for this. Don't talk to the insurance company beyond: "I'll settle for $20k now", "Can't do that." Hang up and start calling lawyers (price just went up). They are going to want to hang injuries over them...so start getting massages and feedback from a chiropractor. You have to play the game to get compensated unfortunately. The lawyers and chiropractor know how to do the dance. Most people just get discouraged by the offending insurance compay and take it in the ass. You should be paid for your time talking to lawyers and going to get massages and dealing with all the logistics of repair, inconvenience of the accident etc. "They can" because you let them... most people don't value their time and do the the same. Great business, insurance. Another way of looking at it is that you could recover all of the money you have ever paid out for auto insurance in one settlement--zeroing out your contribution to the scam. Grind them into dust for every last penny you can pry out of their hands because they do the same to you and all of us. Forget the propaganda about "raising everyone else's rates." That's a joke. This is an industry that punishes loyal customers by raising rates every year until you notice. Then they hope you leave. They are very sensitive about people shopping around each year and always talk about discounts for people who were at their last insurance company for x consecutive years. Scam indeed.