7 ms·

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, yo

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.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      What you propose is additional weight that does require going to court, basically additional incentive to settle if it is reasonably perceived the other party will take the case to court. But there are already additional costs the insurance company would bear if it went to court, which is why they will mostly settle if there is any substantial evidence (like a police report) and even a shadow of a threat of legal action, including—but not limited to—an insurance company on the other side. Neither that nor any additional weight you give the police report that requires going to court alters the calculus at all when the liable party (whether or not they have an insurance company as their agent) is certain you won't take that step.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >3) Ought to have known you were liable How would that even be defined? Is it just based on the balance of evidence available? We already have something for this. If one party is really obviously guilty, then the other party can call for a summary judgement and skip much of the expensive trial.
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."

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.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    What you propose is additional weight that does require going to court, basically additional incentive to settle if it is reasonably perceived the other party will take the case to court. But there are already additional costs the insurance company would bear if it went to court, which is why they will mostly settle if there is any substantial evidence (like a police report) and even a shadow of a threat of legal action, including—but not limited to—an insurance company on the other side. Neither that nor any additional weight you give the police report that requires going to court alters the calculus at all when the liable party (whether or not they have an insurance company as their agent) is certain you won't take that step.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >3) Ought to have known you were liable How would that even be defined? Is it just based on the balance of evidence available? We already have something for this. If one party is really obviously guilty, then the other party can call for a summary judgement and skip much of the expensive trial.

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."