|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Nov 13, 2012 20:47:01 GMT -5
Scenario:
You lost a loved one in an accident and not their fault. Your direct expenses (hospital, automobile) have been reimbursed by your auto insurance carrier.
14 months have passed and your insurance carrier informs you none of the party at fault, their carrier (self-insured city) or their attorney have responded. Exception being the attorney representing the person at fault in traffic court. They want you to join and press civil charges.
What would you do?
|
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Nov 13, 2012 20:55:48 GMT -5
That's a tough call. I'd have to ask myself what I hoped to accomplish and if it was worth the effort before I did anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Nov 14, 2012 6:52:34 GMT -5
I'm not clear if their attorney has responded to you or not. Did they have 2 attorneys and one responded and the other did not?
Is their attorney wanting you to join them in a suit against their client? If so, why? Or, does your own insurance company want you to join them?
What are the civil charges?
Finally, what is the purpose of the civil charges? Financial? An effort to make the at-fault party take some responsibility by losing in court?
|
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Nov 14, 2012 7:41:36 GMT -5
I'm not clear if their attorney has responded to you or not. Did they have 2 attorneys and one responded and the other did not? Is their attorney wanting you to join them in a suit against their client? If so, why? Or, does your own insurance company want you to join them? What are the civil charges? Finally, what is the purpose of the civil charges? Financial? An effort to make the at-fault party take some responsibility by losing in court? I'll learn more today. My mother in law has been trying to deal with all of this and English not her native language is probably one of the issues. From her description is seems like the claim rep is expecting civil charges or my mother in law to have an attorney which they said are common. It also looks like this driver was in a county-owned vehicle and the county's self-insured. The latter might be reason they're not getting a response but a letter stating the maximum liability or damages allowed by law. None of us are vengeful. As far as any money, things like making it easier to help her comes to mind. She's lost the person who did a lot of repairs around the house and some of his income. It would be nice to hire a home repair person once in a while and somebody to shovel for the bigger snows - not put somebody in a new Cadillac. What may complicate is two other drivers were at fault. Driver A started it and this is Driver B. Driver A was never found. Ultimately actions of driver B are what sent my father in law into the other lane of the freeway. No matter what the increased calls she's getting from the insurance company are now stressful for her and we never wanted to get a lawyer. She's stressed by other expecting her to seek damages when a little help for what she's lost (handyman, shovel snow) is the problem if any. I'm sure I'll know more soon. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Nov 14, 2012 7:53:40 GMT -5
That's terrible. She doesn't need more stress, as if she's not gone through enough already.
What is her native language? If it's Spanish, my wife and my wife are fully bilingual, and we'd be happy to help her out in any way we could.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Nov 14, 2012 8:22:24 GMT -5
If she needs to get a lawyer, look into one that will take a cut instead of paying up front. She might end up with less money, but she won't be risking any as well.
I'm not sure if you're in a position to help her, but often times in cases like this you don't actually need a lawyer but someone who can figure out the system and be an advocate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Nov 14, 2012 8:26:10 GMT -5
That's terrible. She doesn't need more stress, as if she's not gone through enough already. What is her native language? If it's Spanish, my wife and my wife are fully bilingual, and we'd be happy to help her out in any way we could. Thank you. German is her native language. She knows English well, but it's really law, insurance and the stress of the scenario that make any problem here. |
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Nov 14, 2012 8:30:13 GMT -5
The parents of our students are a diverse bunch. UN workers and Ambassadors, etc. I can ask one of the German parents we have. They are very nice folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Nov 14, 2012 9:12:17 GMT -5
The parents of our students are a diverse bunch. UN workers and Ambassadors, etc. I can ask one of the German parents we have. They are very nice folks. Hi, Thanks again, but as I said she knows English and my wife is fluent in 4 languages and teaches 3 of them. This is really me needing to find out what the insurance company is up to first.  |
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Nov 14, 2012 9:52:23 GMT -5
Ah, ok. Well, I hope she gets everything resolved and can bring closure and peace to this situation for your family.
|
|
|
|
Post by sordello on Nov 14, 2012 22:00:08 GMT -5
I'm working with a selection of the details I know, but it seems rather odd. Tell me if I'm wrong but I get the sense Driver A did the naughty, causing Driver B to - without deliberate intention - to do a naughty that caused your father in law to be killed.
"They" can't find Driver A, so they decide to just go after Driver B instead. Is this a bum fight between insurers? One compensation has been paid out and they want Driver B's insurer to compensate them now?
Personally, I'm not keen on Driver B getting put through the fire if, I say if, he didn't do any intentional wrong. If he is a victim like your father in law, albeit a surviving one, then it's an insurers' war. They have big pockets, so it could get mediated/settled in one day to avoid the headaches, or they could hunker down and let loose for 5 years in the system.
If your family has to be involved, see if you can do some deposition thing - present your case and claims once and for all upfront and then let the insurers' lawyers do the fighting for 5 years. Tell them to call you only when it's all over. They get a big percentage, you get the residue but "don't bother us with anything until the end of it".
|
|
|
|
Post by naill on Nov 17, 2012 8:53:06 GMT -5
They" can't find Driver A, so they decide to just go after Driver B instead. What motivation do they have to find driver a? All driver a has to do is claim he was not involved, end of story. In my hit and run, I know who the driver is, the police knows who he is, I have his mug shot and where he works. He has repeatedly told the insurance company he was not involved. Now they have his mug shot, police report, and where he works. Nothing will be done based on his word regardless of the physical evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Holy Schist on Nov 17, 2012 10:16:01 GMT -5
They" can't find Driver A, so they decide to just go after Driver B instead. What motivation do they have to find driver a? All driver a has to do is claim he was not involved, end of story. In my hit and run, I know who the driver is, the police knows who he is, I have his mug shot and where he works. He has repeatedly told the insurance company he was not involved. Now they have his mug shot, police report, and where he works. Nothing will be done based on his word regardless of the physical evidence. Your hit and run sounded more like the fool who rear ended me this past summer - no bodily harm done and all fixed with a trip to the body shop. I am guessing law enforcement has motivation in this case because our minor mishaps were not in same league as somebody dead and an Interstate highway closed for hours. We have new words from insurance company saying they along with the Social Security admin are both now going after the other parties for the claims they've paid. We've told the claim rep we do not want any more than indisputable costs covered. This confusion seemed to come from claims rep assuming we're like most people and going for civil damages beyond those costs. Regarding Sordello's comments... The testimony of witnesses said the known driver B is every bit as guilty as unknown driver A based on the space where driver B could have slowed. I see in court records attorney for driver B got one charge dismissed based upon not finding driver A but driver B was charged with unsafe lane deviation. Bottom line is others assumed we would do our own legal actions in civil court which would somehow help then but all we want are costs covered and some message and reminder to the drivers their f up killed somebody. By killed somebody I mean sent them into the median, the truck flipped, and landing on other side of freeway smashed the cab flat. |
|
|
|
Post by naill on Nov 18, 2012 9:20:23 GMT -5
My daughter's car was once hit from behind that sent the vehicle into the one in front of her. The police charged my daughter with following too close.
I am so sorry for your situation.
|
|
