by Guest » Thu Mar 19, 2009 06:04 pm
My daughter was involved in an accident when another driver made an illegal left turn in front of her and totaled her car. The insurance company for the at-fault driver has admitted fault, and has already sent a check for the BlueBook value of the car. However, because of this accident my daughter lost her job. (She was a nanny, and the contract with her employers stated that she must provide her own car to drive the kids around.)
It has been over 3 months since the accident and my daughter has been looking for a replacement job ever since, with no luck so far in this economy. The other driver's insurance company says it will cover the costs of physical therapy that my daughter required for back and neck stiffness, but refuses to accept responsibility for her loss of income, which by now is about $6,000.
My question is, who should she sue, the insurance company, the person who admittedly caused the accident, or both?
Thanks,
Steve
It has been over 3 months since the accident and my daughter has been looking for a replacement job ever since, with no luck so far in this economy. The other driver's insurance company says it will cover the costs of physical therapy that my daughter required for back and neck stiffness, but refuses to accept responsibility for her loss of income, which by now is about $6,000.
My question is, who should she sue, the insurance company, the person who admittedly caused the accident, or both?
Thanks,
Steve
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 02:49 am Post Subject:
Any action would be taken against the at fault party since they caused the accident. Their insurance company will defend them.
I do have a question. Why has a replacement car not been purchased if she needed a car for her job. It sounds like she lost her job because she did not replace her car and not because of her injuries.
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 04:17 am Post Subject:
Auto insurers would cover loss of income from injuries. However, if Das is right then you might not get compensation for loss of income. I think your daughter might look into collecting unemployment insurance benefits for the period of unemployment.
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:32 am Post Subject: insurance
She was a nanny, and the contract with her employers stated that she must provide her own car to drive the kids around.)
She worked for a specific agency OR different individuals? Just curious. You would think that the Employer(s) would understand about the situation, however, I guess it's THEIR decision on what they want to do. I have 'Full Coverage', through the loan, I have with my car. However....I DON'T have anything stating that I could get a Rental Car if anything happened to mine.....I think it's because of the year of the car,etc. To get Unemployment, of course, wouldn't you have to be 'on the job' for so long?Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 01:21 pm Post Subject:
yes, she would have hap to been employed for two quarters I think. 6+ months. I am not certain this is right....
BUT here's a strange catch. My friend who had been employed as a videographer with a court-room reporting firm has just been laid off. He aplied for unemployment , and they didnt count his last 3 months of work, but the 6 months prior to his last three months. ... He wasnt employed that far back and they declined his unemployment request.
Doesnt make sense. Why would they skip 3 months of his most current employment??? We told him to appeal. Seems like trickery.
-----
Are you guys sure that the other's insurance would cover a lawsuit?
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 06:29 pm Post Subject: insurance
and they didnt count his last 3 months of work, but the 6 months prior to his last three months.
Why, on EARTH, wouldn't they count it? Was he working at the same place the last 6 months? How crazy.Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 08:55 pm Post Subject:
yep
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 02:55 am Post Subject: insurance
Just doesn't seem right to 'deny' unemployment, in this case. Things happen..ya know? Maybe she can 'Appeal' the decision. I DO wonder if you can go to your State Rep with this kind of issue. May want to try.
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 03:08 am Post Subject:
Sorry, but I'm with Das,
I do have a question. Why has a replacement car not been purchased if she needed a car for her job. It sounds like she lost her job because she did not replace her car and not because of her injuries.
and was going to ask the same thing...you sayand has already sent a check for the BlueBook value of the car
which I'm sure wasn't the 'blue' book, but that doesn't matter...I'm sure you didn't JUST get that payment for her vehicles total loss right? They didn't wait 3months to pay that...She was a nanny, and the contract with her employers stated that she must provide her own car to drive the kids around.)
geeze they wouldn't give her a week or two to get a replacement car?Are you guys sure that the other's insurance would cover a lawsuit?
yep 100% especially since in this case we know they have accepted liability...your carrier always provides a defense...look in your policy..it says it.. :wink:Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 04:43 am Post Subject:
i agree with Das as well. why wasn't another car purchased, if one was needed by the nature of her job? since they sent a check for the value of the car, your daughter should at least get a replacement vehicle for her job right?
next, the insurance company naturally wouldn't cover the loss of income, since the loss was more due to the lack of appropriate vehicle for the job (which can be replaced), rather than the injuries caused by the accident.
off topic: (not abt insurance) i would suggest your daughter to talk to her ex-employer, and discuss about the issue. since the other party was at fault, i believe the accident wasn't caused due to reckless driving on your daughter's side. if the employer hasn't already found a new nanny, get the replacement car for your daughter and get her back on track.
Add your comment