by Guest » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:11 pm
I will try to explain the best I can. Here it goes
The blazer belongs to my neice and her grandmother with the grandmothers name first, The grandmother has full coverage insurance on the blazer but her granddaughter is not on the policy nor was she listed in the household. My neice let her cousin by marriage drive in the woods Thanksgiving day. The cousin by marriage didn't have a DL was supposed to get them the Monday after Thanksgiving. The 2 girls were riding in the woods and the driver over corrected herself around a sharp curve which they hit a fence and a ditch. The driver hit her face on the steering wheel busted her nose and gapped her lip open and a bad bruise on her leg she was wearing her seatbelt. The passenger my neice wasn't wearing her seatbelt and was hurt in the back they had 2 do surgery on her and replace her L1 verdbra, she is able to walk she is home as of right now her injurys are not all known. The driver got a ticket for careless driving and driving without a DL. Passenger my neice got a ticket for letting a person drive without a DL. Both girls have to go to court for that. What will come of the grandmother insurance company for both girls and will they pay medical bills for both girls? What do we need to do? The grandmother says she has a $50,000 bi not sure what all that means for the driver or my neice. Can anyone shed some light on any of this.
thanks in advance
The blazer belongs to my neice and her grandmother with the grandmothers name first, The grandmother has full coverage insurance on the blazer but her granddaughter is not on the policy nor was she listed in the household. My neice let her cousin by marriage drive in the woods Thanksgiving day. The cousin by marriage didn't have a DL was supposed to get them the Monday after Thanksgiving. The 2 girls were riding in the woods and the driver over corrected herself around a sharp curve which they hit a fence and a ditch. The driver hit her face on the steering wheel busted her nose and gapped her lip open and a bad bruise on her leg she was wearing her seatbelt. The passenger my neice wasn't wearing her seatbelt and was hurt in the back they had 2 do surgery on her and replace her L1 verdbra, she is able to walk she is home as of right now her injurys are not all known. The driver got a ticket for careless driving and driving without a DL. Passenger my neice got a ticket for letting a person drive without a DL. Both girls have to go to court for that. What will come of the grandmother insurance company for both girls and will they pay medical bills for both girls? What do we need to do? The grandmother says she has a $50,000 bi not sure what all that means for the driver or my neice. Can anyone shed some light on any of this.
thanks in advance
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:28 pm Post Subject:
Wow what buzz kill for Thanksgiving huh...mercy that's a couple of lucky little girls..let me ask you first, where their no adults in charge around here? Were the drivers parents there and did they knowingly allow their daughter to drive? Was this on a public road or just private property? Ok, now let me understand something...does passenger have possession of this blazer? I know it's in her grandma's name, but did grandma give it to her? and then kept the ins in her name I assume to try and skirt the premium for a teen driver? do they live in the same household?
What will come of the grandmother insurance company for both girls and will they pay medical bills for both girls?
It depends on the state and the coverage for the driver...the passenger more than likely will be allowed a BI claim (that's the 50k limit)...if there is medpay or PIP then both girls should get that, driver more than likely will not be allowed a BI claim because she 'should' be considered a permissive driver under the policy therefore an insured, she is clearly liable/negligent/caused the accident, so she shouldn't be able to present a BI claim, but only any first party coverages the policy has..What do we need to do?
Get a claim filed, with both the policy on the blazer as well as any policy the drivers parents or guardians have...The grandmother says she has a $50,000 bi not sure what all that means for the driver or my neice
Doubt the driver will be eligable for this but passenger should be.. Who does passenger live with? ARe their other insured vehicles in that residence? If so, you also need to file a claim with them (ie mom and dad's car)...I know it's very complicated, and I'm sure everyone is very upset...try and answer the questions i've asked, others will be along soon i'm sure to try and help shed some light on this for you...i'm so sorry about the girls (and grandma who by the way if she isn't canceled for this will definately see a huge premium increase, and hopefully she didn't lie on the application for insurance, that is a whole 'nuther' bag of worms that could get then entire claim denied...you need to check on that too, see what she put on the app for insurance)...I'm glad the girls were not hurt any worse...they could've both been killed...oh forgot something else, was there any damage to anything other than the girls and the blazer (ie fences, trees, poles etc.?)Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:57 pm Post Subject:
First the passenger is 19 almost 20 the driver just turned 18 a few days before. The drivers parents was not aware of anything until after the fact.
I guess it is private property. The passenger is the sole driver of the blazer. The blazer is in grandmothers and passengers name. And yes the insurance was cheaper that way. Yes the passenger lives with her grandmother and has since she was 18. Florida. The grandmother and my neice the passenger are the only 2 people that live in the home the grandmother has a car as well as the blazer on her insurance. The driver lives with her parents. The fence was damaged.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 01:13 pm Post Subject:
Also the speed limit in the woods is 55 mph the driver was going low 40's This is what the highway patrolman said, The driver said that it scared her because the passenger didn't have her seatbelt on so she didn't want to slam on the breaks and put the passenger through the windsheild. The driver lost her brother in a bad car accident a fews months ago. Whole other story different driver different car. So the driver is pretty shook up about the whole thing and I see where she is coming from. My neice the passenger Sees that to she doesn't blame her she just wished she had her seatbelt on. Even though my neice was hurt the most she knows that the driver is mentally shook up about it more.
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 02:05 pm Post Subject:
Yes the passenger lives with her grandmother and has since she was 18. Florida.The grandmother and my neice the passenger are the only 2 people that live in the home the grandmother has a car as well as the blazer on her insurance.
oh crap...well i sure hope grandma didn't fib on the application for insurance... :shock: that 'could' get ugly is someone catches it...since passenger wasn't driving hopefully it won't come up...The driver lives with her parents.
find out if they have an auto policy and if so they need to file a claim...The fence was damaged.
That should be covered under the blazer PD coverage...Also the speed limit in the woods is 55 mph the driver was going low 40's
what? how do you have a speed limit in the woods? :?This is what the highway patrolman said, The driver said that it scared her because the passenger didn't have her seatbelt on so she didn't want to slam on the breaks and put the passenger through the windsheild.
passenger may get some contributor negligence for her own injury because of this, but it would likely be minimal...i don't know how flordia looks at that, there is a regular poster that was an adjuster in flordia for a long while he hopefully will come along shortly (calling Tcope!)The drivers parents was not aware of anything until after the fact.
Were they there? oh wait it doesn't really matter neither is a minor...My biggest concern right now is the possiblity that grandma could be looking at material misrep that's bad...however I'm not sure how the pass. wouldn't be included as an insured under the policy if her name is on the vehicle? UNLESS grandma 'fibbed' and didn't put her on the app as an owner, and further 'fibbed' by not saying there were any other drivers in the house...ok, worse case scenrio is, they find material mis rep on grandma, they refund all premium and there is zero coverage for this claim, and i do mean zero...and grandma likely has trouble getting any ins. that doesn't cost an arm and leg, if she can get it...don't think they could file fraud charges without the claim being paid...that is worse case...it is NEVER a good idea to lie on an application for insurance (if she did and kinda sounds like she did)....and this is why...fortunately for grandma there is no other property or people that were injured in THIS accident that could come after grandma (as the owner)....let us know after you look at or ask grandma how she answered those questions on the application...also what the adjusters from all these different companys have to say about the claim. any other questions please let us know...man, poor grandma this could really bite her in the butt...oh forgot is there a lein/loan on this blazer?
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 02:13 pm Post Subject:
I was hard pressed to find anything that was done correctly in that situation. Actually that is not true... I could not find anything. It started to go bad with the grandmother and I really see her, as an older adult, as the biggest problem in this situation (did not bother to insure her niece as she should have and still allowed her access to a vehicle when she was only 19 years old).
I'll take a stab at this but can't be 100% sure it's correct...
Driver and passenger should get PIP coverage ($10k in medical coverage, paid at 80%) from anyone they live with that is blood related to them and owns a vehicle. This will only address their medical bills and loss wages.
The driver, the cousin, is liable for the injuries to the niece. The grandmother is also liable as the owner. Since the driver had permission to use the vehicle, the grandmothers policy should provide the driver liability coverage under the grandmothers policy. I doubt the cousin has insurance as the cousin did not have a DL. So the grandmothers policy should address the grand-daughters injuries under the bodily injury portion of the policy. The driver should not get bodily injury coverage as the driver caused her own injury and BI is a liability coverage (driver can't be liable to herself for causing her own injury).
An attorney who wants to stretch the issue might try to say that the grand mother is responsible for negligent instrument so she is liable for the injures to the cousin. This is not a long stretch, even in Florida. Now I'm not saying this should be done but if the medical bills for the cousin need to be paid, she may want to see if an attorney agrees about this and will handle her case against the grandmother's policy. After all, the grand mother can be _assured_ that her carrier won't renew that policy.
There is no way to know for sure how the grandmothers policy is going to react as there are just so many things wrong with what _everyone_ did.
Whole other story different driver different car. So the driver is pretty shook up about the whole thing and I see where she is coming from.
Harsh words to follow.... sorry, I can't see where she is coming from. Her brother is killed in a car accident just a few months ago and she STILL sees fit to borrow an SUV from a 19 year old and drive it without a license and on top of that, she was okay with the passenger not wearing her seat belt! Nope... she _knew_ this was all a bad idea and still went through with it. Usually when someone close to you dies, you learn a lesson from it.Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 05:07 pm Post Subject:
First thank you both a bunch..
The trooper said that there is no posted speed for the woods so it is 55mph.
No the parents of the driver wasn't there they found out after there daughter arrived at the hospital.
The part about the driver in this case she did learn a lesson and did try to get my neice to wear her seatbelt and when they are riding around before this accident the driver which would be the passenger any other time has always tried to get my neice to wear her seatbelt. My neice would never wear her seatbelt. But her cousin by marriage has always wore her seatbelt. Both girls didn't see any harm in the driver driving in the woods that was the onliest reason my neice let her drive. The driver was supposed to get her DL the Monday after Thanksgiving..
Does this mean that the driver is responsiable for the passenger?
What does that part mean? My neice can't sue because wouldn't she be sueing her grandmother as well?
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 05:13 pm Post Subject:
Oh I forgot to answer the question about a lein the blazer was not paid for so I am guessing that is a lein
Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 06:02 pm Post Subject:
Rule on the seat belt is extremely easy.... 1) Florida hold the driver responsible for the front seat passenger wearing their seat belt. 2) If the passenger won't wear the seat belt, the vehicle does not move. So when someone says that they can't get the passenger to wear their seat belt, it holds absolutely no water. You let the person get away with it and _of course_ they are not going to wear it.
Both girls didn't see any harm in the driver driving in the woods that was the onliest reason my niece let her drive.
And we all know that 18-20 year olds are the shining example of common sense. No, I mainly blame the grandmother for allowing niece to have access to the keys. The grandmother is an adult and knew that the niece could not drive the vehicle.The driver was supposed to get her DL the Monday after Thanksgiving.
I'm sure the courts will make this a Thanksgiving in the far future.Does this mean that the driver is responsiable for the passenger?
That is correct, the driver caused injury to the passenger and appears to be legally liable for those injuries. It's the same as if the driver hit the passenger while the passenger was in another vehicle. Why can't your niece sue her grand mother? In Florida, the owner is as responsible for the use of the vehicle as the driver is. There is no law that says if you are the person's grandmother that you can't be responsible for the injuries you cause. But lets me clear, being legally liable means the grandmothers policy can/should react to pay for the passengers injuries. I think this will be done but it's a confusing situation. The passenger filing suit against the driver and grandmother can be done for the same reason but that does not mean that it will happen or needs to happen in order to get paid (people confusing filing and being paid on a claim and "suing"). If the insurance company offers to pay the passenger and the passenger agrees to a settlement, then everything is done. But if the passenger is not paid and thinks that she should be paid, then she can hire an attorney to visit the issue and if the attorney is not satisfied and the passenger wants to pursue the issue, the attorney can file suit against the grand mother. How far the passenger wants to take the issue is up to the passenger.What does that part mean? My neice can't sue because wouldn't she be sueing her grandmother as well?
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 02:59 am Post Subject:
Thank you very much, you were very helpful. Just two questions though what did you mean by the courts making this Thanksgiving in the far future? and Why would the grandmothers insurance company want to talk to the driver?
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 04:34 am Post Subject:
Meaning the traffic judge will probably not allow the driver to get her license for at least 12 months, perhaps 24 months. The insurance company needs to talk to the driver as the driver would be considered an insured under the policy and will probably be provided protection (liability coverage) under their policy so they need to find out from the driver what happened. Basically the insurance company is providing the driver protection against the passenger.
Add your comment