• filter:
  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
Hey all,

Back in July, I got rear-ended, passenger in wife's car.  Our insurance is only in wife's name.  Lot's of back and forth between insurances, but today finally came the denial phone call from the other parties' insurance.  Looking to see what my options are.  Our medical bills were minor (~1k between us two and the kid), but my lost wages claim is sizeable.  20yo chick was driving the car, registered to daddy and I assume insurance in daddy's name too.

What are my options now?

Should uninsured coverage kick in for medical and/or lost wages and the deductible?
-or-
Is small claims the way to go?  Limit in CA is $10k per personal suit, but can I sue daddy and daughter separately (so in effect $20k).  I plan filing 3 (or 6) suits, one for each of us to recoup lost earnings, etc.

I'd like to see what the collective minds of FWF have to say.  Thanks in advance.
 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
My adjuster had the balls to say my claim was high based on the damage to the car.  Needless to say I lost it on her.  I... (more)

lotusgardener (Mar. 02, 2017 @ 8:05a) |

Adjusters say ANYTHING to lower the value of the payout.

forbin4040 (Mar. 02, 2017 @ 8:46a) |

Yep, they will lie as much as real estate agents and lawyers. 

Mickie3 (Mar. 02, 2017 @ 8:52a) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
What was the basis for denial?

rated:
1) What does your wife's insurance company say?
2) Why were you driving your wife's car when you had no insurance to drive it?
3) Will your wife's insurance even cover anything for a spouse with no insurance who drove the car?
4) What was thee basis for denial?

rated:
ellory said:   
2) Why were you driving your wife's car when you had no insurance to drive it?

I read that as the OP being the passenger, with his wife driving

rated:
ellory said:   1) What does your wife's insurance company say?
2) Why were you driving your wife's car when you had no insurance to drive it?
3) Will your wife's insurance even cover anything for a spouse with no insurance who drove the car?
4) What was thee basis for denial?

  2) The vehicle insurance is per vehicle, not individual driving it.  (unless it's a renal where your your own auto policy may cover the rentals too, up to certain extent)
3) Yes, as long as the husband has the permission from the wife to drive the vehicle.  Nothing to do with the relationship at all, just need the permission to use the vehicle unless the insurance co specifically said that they won't cover individuals in the household with a drivers license not yet added to the policy. i.e. teens wit the DL but not on the insurance.

rated:
ach1199 said:   
ellory said:   1) What does your wife's insurance company say?
2) Why were you driving your wife's car when you had no insurance to drive it?
3) Will your wife's insurance even cover anything for a spouse with no insurance who drove the car?
4) What was thee basis for denial?

  2) The vehicle insurance is per vehicle, not individual driving it.  (unless it's a renal where your your own auto policy may cover the rentals too, up to certain extent)
3) Yes, as long as the husband has the permission from the wife to drive the vehicle.  Nothing to do with the relationship at all, just need the permission to use the vehicle unless the insurance co specifically said that they won't cover individuals in the household with a drivers license not yet added to the policy. i.e. teens wit the DL but not on the insurance.

  You're not the OP.  And these insurance rules are different by state

rated:
lotusgardener said:   Is small claims the way to go?  Limit in CA is $10k per personal suit, but can I sue daddy and daughter separately (so in effect $20k).  I plan filing 3 (or 6) suits, one for each of us to recoup lost earnings, etc.
 

I do not specifically know CA law, but you usually can't file suits piecemeal like that. Also, your wife may very well be brought into any such suit as a third-party defendant (if they have an argument that she stopped short, or similar).

rated:
fwuser12 said:   What was the basis for denial?
 

  This... Did they deny "coverage" (e.g. their insured did not have a valid policy in place)? Or did they deny "liability" (e.g. their insured was not legally responsible for your damages)? You should get a letter, not just a phone call, citing the reasons for denial. That information is needed to determine next steps/

rated:
dannon35 said:   
fwuser12 said:   What was the basis for denial?
  This... Did they deny "coverage" (e.g. their insured did not have a valid policy in place)? Or did they deny "liability" (e.g. their insured was not legally responsible for your damages)? You should get a letter, not just a phone call, citing the reasons for denial. That information is needed to determine next steps/

  

Just got the phone call today and they said the car had "no coverage".  If/when I get the letter and there's more info, I'll update.

rated:
ellory said:   1) What does your wife's insurance company say?
2) Why were you driving your wife's car when you had no insurance to drive it?
3) Will your wife's insurance even cover anything for a spouse with no insurance who drove the car?
4) What was thee basis for denial?

  
1) Waiting on their input now due to denial.
2) N/A.  I was passenger.
3) N/A.
4) See above.

rated:
lotusgardener said:   
dannon35 said:   
fwuser12 said:   What was the basis for denial?
  This... Did they deny "coverage" (e.g. their insured did not have a valid policy in place)? Or did they deny "liability" (e.g. their insured was not legally responsible for your damages)? You should get a letter, not just a phone call, citing the reasons for denial. That information is needed to determine next steps/

  

Just got the phone call today and they said the car had "no coverage".  If/when I get the letter and there's more info, I'll update.

Which car? You aren't making this easy.

rated:
Some policies have a driver exclusion.

In CA there's a limit to the amount and # of cases for small claims per year.

Good luck suing for "lost wages".

rated:
lotusgardener said:   
dannon35 said:   
fwuser12 said:   What was the basis for denial?
  This... Did they deny "coverage" (e.g. their insured did not have a valid policy in place)? Or did they deny "liability" (e.g. their insured was not legally responsible for your damages)? You should get a letter, not just a phone call, citing the reasons for denial. That information is needed to determine next steps/

  

Just got the phone call today and they said the car had "no coverage".  If/when I get the letter and there's more info, I'll update.

  No Coverage?  Sounds like someone who was in the 'driver exclusion' hit you.   
Does that Driver have proper insurance?

You then get your insurance to cover you under 'uninsured motorist'.

If that doesn't work then time to sue the owner of the car and the driver of the car (If separate people)

rated:
If I'm understanding OP correctly, he needs to stop going after the other driver's insurance and go after an uninsured claim on his own insurance?

At the very least, he can put in a claim with his insurance - tell his insurance the details - and then let his insurance duke it out with their insurance.

rated:
lotusgardener said:   
dannon35 said:   
fwuser12 said:   What was the basis for denial?
  This... Did they deny "coverage" (e.g. their insured did not have a valid policy in place)? Or did they deny "liability" (e.g. their insured was not legally responsible for your damages)? You should get a letter, not just a phone call, citing the reasons for denial. That information is needed to determine next steps/

  

Just got the phone call today and they said the car had "no coverage".  If/when I get the letter and there's more info, I'll update.

  
So daddy didn't tell the insurance company his daughter was driving.  Oops!  You'll probably have to sue daddy and daughter and not by your piecemeal approach.

rated:
Talk to your own insurance company and see what they say. If you don't like it, talk to an attorney. There's nothing special about your situation. You're over complicating it.

rated:
LorenPechtel said:   
 
  
So daddy didn't tell the insurance company his daughter was driving.  Oops!  You'll probably have to sue daddy and daughter and not by your piecemeal approach.

  FYI LorenPechtel, if it is in CA (Which it is) it goes way beyond 'not telling the insurance company daugther was driving'.  It's more into 'Insurance company told Daddy that daughter cannot drive car without her own separate insurance and had him sign a specific document agreeing to that fact'.

If for instance a 13 yr old Driver (No license) took Daddy's car out for a joyride and got into an accident, that's a covered incident.  If an 17 yr old child (with a license) who was excluded from insurance and took Daddy's car with or without permission, that is a 'no coverage' clause.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   
LorenPechtel said:   
 
  
So daddy didn't tell the insurance company his daughter was driving.  Oops!  You'll probably have to sue daddy and daughter and not by your piecemeal approach.

  FYI LorenPechtel, if it is in CA (Which it is) it goes way beyond 'not telling the insurance company daugther was driving'.  It's more into 'Insurance company told Daddy that daughter cannot drive car without her own separate insurance and had him sign a specific document agreeing to that fact'.

If for instance a 13 yr old Driver (No license) took Daddy's car out for a joyride and got into an accident, that's a covered incident.  If an 17 yr old child (with a license) who was excluded from insurance and took Daddy's car with or without permission, that is a 'no coverage' clause.

  
I wasn't aware of the signing a specific document but otherwise you're saying the same thing I was--Daddy was playing it cheap, not telling the insurance company he had a young driver.

rated:
LorenPechtel said:   
forbin4040 said:   
 
  FYI LorenPechtel, if it is in CA (Which it is) it goes way beyond 'not telling the insurance company daugther was driving'.  It's more into 'Insurance company told Daddy that daughter cannot drive car without her own separate insurance and had him sign a specific document agreeing to that fact'.

If for instance a 13 yr old Driver (No license) took Daddy's car out for a joyride and got into an accident, that's a covered incident.  If an 17 yr old child (with a license) who was excluded from insurance and took Daddy's car with or without permission, that is a 'no coverage' clause.

  
I wasn't aware of the signing a specific document but otherwise you're saying the same thing I was--Daddy was playing it cheap, not telling the insurance company he had a young driver.

  That would then be a 'covered' clause.  And of course afterwards Daddy would then get cancelled.

rated:
uninsured-motorist insurance covers medical, pain/suffering, and lost wages.

better to go that route, since you're guaranteed to get your $.

collecting a judgement is a crap shoot.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   
LorenPechtel said:   
forbin4040 said:   
 
  FYI LorenPechtel, if it is in CA (Which it is) it goes way beyond 'not telling the insurance company daugther was driving'.  It's more into 'Insurance company told Daddy that daughter cannot drive car without her own separate insurance and had him sign a specific document agreeing to that fact'.

If for instance a 13 yr old Driver (No license) took Daddy's car out for a joyride and got into an accident, that's a covered incident.  If an 17 yr old child (with a license) who was excluded from insurance and took Daddy's car with or without permission, that is a 'no coverage' clause.

  
I wasn't aware of the signing a specific document but otherwise you're saying the same thing I was--Daddy was playing it cheap, not telling the insurance company he had a young driver.

  That would then be a 'covered' clause.  And of course afterwards Daddy would then get cancelled.

  
Had to deal with this while I was working out of country - my stepmother had an accident in my pickup.  Her insurance refused to cover her and mine had to pay out.  Mine then added her to my policy at the age of 18, re-rated and sent me a bill for $800 or so.  (my parents had 3 lots and I was using one of them as a permanent address with its own mailbox)    After a long discussion with my insurance company I sent them a copy of her policy and they took her off my insurance.  

It was about the ONLY thing her policy was good for!

rated:
I'm headed down the UM Coverage on my policy at this point. We'll see what happens. Luckily all of lost wages are documentable, so that should help. Our case got handed off to another (3rd) agent, and she seems like she know what actually needs done, so I hopeful.

meade18, I'm only overcomplicating it because I'm in CA. I've never dealt with the level of incompetency from everyone (driver, cops, both insurances) in my life, and I've lived (and insuranced) in every corner of this country in my short time as an adult.

kamef, Lawsuit was def a last resort. She's probable judgement proof, but it was Daddy that I wanted to go after, since everyone here has a $1m in house value.

Hopefully this will get settled sooner rather than later, and Ill update for the sake of closure!

rated:
kamef said:   uninsured-motorist insurance covers medical, pain/suffering, and lost wages.

better to go that route, since you're guaranteed to get your $.

collecting a judgement is a crap shoot.

  You may have to sue the driver, car owner and your own insurer to claim an uninsured motorist claim. Your carrier would then try to subrogate the loss by pursuing the judgement against the driver.

rated:
lotusgardener said:   kamef, Lawsuit was def a last resort. She's probable judgement proof, but it was Daddy that I wanted to go after, since everyone here has a $1m in house value.
 

  Doesnt necessarily mean their equity is anywhere close.

rated:
fwuser12 said:   
lotusgardener said:   kamef, Lawsuit was def a last resort. She's probable judgement proof, but it was Daddy that I wanted to go after, since everyone here has a $1m in house value.
  Doesnt necessarily mean their equity is anywhere close.

  It's CA, Daddy will have homeowner's insurance.

rated:
lotusgardener said:   meade18, I'm only overcomplicating it because I'm in CA. I've never dealt with the level of incompetency from everyone (driver, cops, both insurances) in my life, and I've lived (and insuranced) in every corner of this country in my short time as an adult.
  
Thanks for the clarification. Those of us not in California have no idea what you folks have to go through in these situations that seem much simpler in other states. I have no idea why it's so different there, but I'll take your word for it based on some other anecdotal evidence I've heard about CA. If you feel like enlightening us, I wouldn't mind the education.

Sorry your own insurance is difficult to deal with. That's the thing that would piss me off the most. I would just want to scream at them, "HANDLE THIS! THIS IS WHAT I AM PAYING YOU FOR!"

rated:
Call Mike Slocumb on the hurtline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k84UIofsC8



rated:
meade18 said:   
lotusgardener said:   meade18, I'm only overcomplicating it because I'm in CA. I've never dealt with the level of incompetency from everyone (driver, cops, both insurances) in my life, and I've lived (and insuranced) in every corner of this country in my short time as an adult.
  
Thanks for the clarification. Those of us not in California have no idea what you folks have to go through in these situations that seem much simpler in other states. I have no idea why it's so different there, but I'll take your word for it based on some other anecdotal evidence I've heard about CA. If you feel like enlightening us, I wouldn't mind the education.

Sorry your own insurance is difficult to deal with. That's the thing that would piss me off the most. I would just want to scream at them, "HANDLE THIS! THIS IS WHAT I AM PAYING YOU FOR!"

  
My adjuster had the balls to say my claim was high based on the damage to the car.  Needless to say I lost it on her.  It was a mid 90's Malibu that hit our SUV, that had a hitch.  Hitch took the brunt of the force, but man, you should have seen her license plate!

rated:
Adjusters say ANYTHING to lower the value of the payout.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   Adjusters say ANYTHING to lower the value of the payout.
  

Yep, they will lie as much as real estate agents and lawyers. 



 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017