my smashed 83 300D story is getting a lot worse... - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JHZR2 · #1 08-05-2004, 08:47 PM

As many of you know, my 83 300D was smashed by an inatentive driver on I-95.

I found out today from progressive insurance (the owner's insurance) that the owner of the car (who has a different name and address than the girl who was driving) had three 'exclusions' on his policy. Of course, one of these excluded people was the girl who was driving.

Progressive now claims that there is questionable insurance, and that most likely, their insurance will not cover the damages incurred in the four-car accident that this girl caused, because of the exclusion.

I do not know how/where it can go from here. If the insurance company claims no liability and refuses to pay, then I guess I (and the other three) have to go after the girl who was driving and the owner of the car. I guess the car was technically 'stolen' if she was excluded from insurance coverage on that vehicle, and if not, then there was implied aggreeance on part of the owner to allow the girl to drive the car and thus there should have been no exclusion.

I am getting really sick of this, and afraid that I will soon be looking at getting nothing or next to nothing for my damages, time and effort. Chances are the 20 year old girl and the car owner have no or next to no assets.

SO, does anyone have any advice or comment on the situation? I am doing as much research as I can, but arent getting too far. This is now an interstate case, and I assume there is some federal jurisdiction, although I cannot find out who the jursidiction is.

Any words would be appreciated.

Thanks,

JMH

Mr. FancyPants · #2 08-05-2004, 08:58 PM

Does your insurance policy include un-insured coverage?

I believe in some states it is required. If someone hits you, and they do not have insurance, your insurance underwriters will cover the damage!

JHZR2 · #3 08-05-2004, 09:00 PM

Yes, in NJ this is necessary... However it is absolutely ridiculous that my insurance company should have to pay out because of the idiocy and incompetence of others that should not have even been driving the car.

Plus, this is NJ... any use of the insurance company = much higher premiums...

JMH

Mr. FancyPants · #4 08-05-2004, 09:09 PM

I fully agree! But you may weigh this all out, such as, if you go after the owner of the car, and possibly the driver, this would mean that you'll have to hire an attorney, file a lawsuit, go to court, before winning anything from them.

And if they don't have much money to begin with, you may have to wait years before complete settlement.

On the otherhand, I would doubt your premium would go up much if at all if you file a claim.

You should talk to your insurance company, or maybe someone here who has been through this kind of wringer can shed more light.

Sorry that you have to go through all this b___s___

pwogaman · #5 08-05-2004, 09:42 PM

You could still pursue the owner of the other car for negligent entrustment if he, nevertheless, let the excluded party operate the vehicle - even more so if he was on notice that the driver was specifically excluded because there must be a good reason for it. It could be considered negligent to let a person use your car that you know is not allowed to operate it legally. And I say legally, because in every state you have to have insurance of some minimal type. In other words, if he knows she is not insured in his car - for whatever reason - and he knowingly lets her use it, he is responsible for causing an uninsured vehicle to cruise the public roads. That is a risk that should fall to him.

If he says he did not let her operate the vehicle you could still pursue him for failing to keep his car secure from her (did she have the keys?). Was she doing something for him with his car (picking up kids, getting groceries, etc . . .)?

In any event, your insurance company should be backing you up on this with legal advise and support. You pay your insurance to cover you in the event you are in a accident - your fault or not. Don't let them try weasel out on you.

Good luck.

dieselmania · #6 08-05-2004, 09:47 PM

Yes, let your insurance pay. They will go after the other party with their staff lawyers to try and recoup what they can. They will probably even go after Progressive. They do this all the time and will take all the measures needed, including wage garnishment and license revocation of the other parties if it comes to that. Your premium will not go up as you were not at fault.
Be sure you have collision coverage on your vehicle though. If you only had liability then your uninsured motorist will only cover bodily injury, but if you had collision then it will also cover property damage.
Good luck, and I hope you get a fair settlement.

JHZR2 · #7 08-05-2004, 09:59 PM

didnt have collision... ugh

JMH

kamil · #8 08-05-2004, 10:01 PM

i would sue the hell out of the girl.......... you would even get money back for your time and lawyer fees

phantoms · #9 08-05-2004, 11:01 PM

I don't know how it works in NJ, but in GA the insurance covers the car, not the driver. This is by law and means if there is coverage on a car that's involved in an accident then the insurance company is responsible for their coverage regardless of who was driving. I beleive this to be the case even if the car was stolen.

Eric Eliel · #10 08-06-2004, 12:10 AM

There were exculsions on the policy according to Progressive. You need to bring a small claims lawsuit against both parties and let the judge determine who is the responsible party. In CA the limit is $5,000. I wouldn't waste anymore time on this, go to the small claims court and file a suit immediately. Subpoena both the owner and the dirver and maybe even a low line Progressive representative. Once you obtain a judgement, it basically ruins their credit for obtaining any kind of loans until the judgement is paid.

84300DT · #11 08-06-2004, 07:11 AM

had the exact same thing happen to me. their insurance co. made some sort of noises like that. filed in small claims and suddenly got a call from their insurance co. offering to settle. sometimes all it takes is a step that proves you will not keel over and go away so easily.

rdanz · #12 08-06-2004, 08:14 AM

From my understanding it is the CAR that is insured no matter who is driving.

JHZR2 · #13 08-06-2004, 09:21 AM

That's my impression too. Otherwise, why cnt everyone exclude all other drivers from their policy, and never be liable for anything. I think it all has to do with passing the buck, but regardless, the owner of the car should always be at least somewhat liable (unless the car was stolen, I suppose).

Thanks,

JMH

Eric Eliel · #14 08-06-2004, 12:36 PM

At the gym this morning, I just talked to one of my buddies who is an Allstate agent. The cheap insurance companies (Mercury etc) issue policies that exclude all drivers other than the owner of the policy AND there are the other guys (State Farm, Allstate and Farmers etc) that issue more straight forward policies that cover the car without regard to the driver. Progressive may have issued one of the cheap policies. (He told me the specific insurance language, but I couldn't remember it 2 hours later).

You need to start a small claims court action as soon as possible. 20 years ago I had to take a USAA insured to small claims. She claimed (during a rain storm with signal lights out) that she had the right of way. USAA wouldn't take responsibility for their insured because they couldn't (or wouldn't) determine fault. I sued in small claims. I won. When lights are completely out in an lighted intersection, it is treated as a 4-way stop, she ran the "stop". I received a check from USAA within 4 weeks after the ruling. USAA is a pretty well known and respected company. Can't say the same for Mercury or Progressive.

Hatterasguy · #15 08-06-2004, 01:32 PM

If you have never dealt with insurance companies before your in for a long battle. My little $1,300 fender bender went on for a year before the other company paid. My advice is to take them to court that will get things moving. The insurance company in my case refused to pay because I was a 17 year old kid, (the accident was not my fault) they made up bs laws and tried every trick they know of. Remember one thing they are lying scrum who will try very hard to screw you every way they can. What motivated them in my case was us taking the people to small claims court, we also got an attorny to send a letter to the company. Sometimes the threat to sue and cost them tons of money to defend is enough. If they weren't going to pay me my $1,300 I was going to make sure they would be paying a lawyer more to fight a suit.