by KKmommy » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:40 pm
My children and I were rear ended Sept 23, 2007. I secured an attorney and assumed he would be handling my children's claim as well. He is not and only recently contacted me to sign papers allowing him to represent my children. During this time I have found out my attorney has been in jail for the past 4 years for embezzlement. He also told me during these past 4 years he had taken time off and was in Europe taking a much needed vacation. Ok so Im stuck with him and at this point I am trying to handle my children's claim on my own. My children werent taken to the hospital in an ambulance nor was I, I was taken straight to jail and not offered medical attention because I was driving under suspension. The driver who struck me failed to yeild to a light on a draw bridge and rammed the back of my car. The insurance company has totaled my car and paid damages in the amount of $1500.00 (and I had to pay the storage and towing fees). Ok so when I was released from jail later on that night I had to go the ER and took my children along with me of course. A very good friend of mine came with to help with the children. I did not realize until later on that my children had not recieved xrays. I'm trying to make this story short but detailed as possible. Again I am trying to settle the claim for my children who are 2 and 10 the 10 year old being a downs child. Neither of my children are verbal and I have a hard time trying to access they're level of pain! My children's lives have been turned upside down to having to move from a private school to a county school, to changing they're everyday routine, as well as nightmares and the battle I go thru to get them both in vehicles and on the school bus since the accident. The insurance adjuster offered my children $500.00 for they're pain and suffering. This is ridiculous to me, what should I do, how do I know what they're claim is worth? What about future effects of this wreck on my children? The adjuster has assured me that because my children had to leave they're home and relocate to another school who cannot service my son's needs as his previous school...my 2yr old's nightmares and unwillingness to ride in a vehicle is compensated for with an offer of 500 not to exceed 650.00!
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 05:18 pm Post Subject:
Guest, you are wrong. Sure, my insured should not be parked in a loading zone or any other place it shouldnt be and that is a seperate matter. Being parked illegally has no contributory negligence to the accident. Just because I see a car parked illegally doesnt give me the right to smash into it. I am the one in control. I can curse the guy out for being there but that is it. If your theory is correct, then someone who parks in a handicapped zone is responsible for someone backing into them. It isnt dangerous to be there. Some cars belong there, so, how is it the parked car's fault. Are you suggesting that a handicapped person would receive 100% of the damages because they are handicapped but a person with no handicap would be paritally at fault? That is ridiculous.
As I said before, I never lost a claim under these circumstances. I never lost an Arbitration that consisted of a committee of three representatives of three insurance companies. So, I am correct. Your theory is ludicrous.
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 05:38 pm Post Subject:
(Sorry, was not logged in before)
I never said the person hitting the parked car was not a majority at fault. I also (attempted) to point out that the reason _why_ the area is marked as a no parking area needs to be considered. As I mentioned, if an area is inherently dangerous, the owner of the property requests that no one park in this area, and the person chooses to ignore the posted warning, then they can be held partially responsible. It's simple negligence laws that apply. A person knowingly put their vehicle in harms way. Again, it accounts for a little liability, no a majority.
We all know AFI is no where near a true measure of law by any means. They do not abide by state or federal laws (discovery, etc) and "winning" a case most of time comes down to who writes a better argument. One example I always mention... I inherited a claim after the adjuster left where our insured made a left turn out of a parking lot because the vehicle passing from his left to right had it's turn signal, indicating the driver was going to pull into the parking lot. So my insured pulled out right in front of him. The prior adjuster (before me) denied the claim completely as this person had left his signal on. I called the adjuster and LM offering 90% if he just wanted to settle w/o me having to answer. He did not call me back. I did not respond to arb. The other lost completely as their was no police report, they only had their drivers statement, so they could not prove the accident with my insured even happen. If I had responded, I would have acknowledged that my insured was there and I would have lost. Is this a true measure of legal liability? Sorry... AFI is not a measure of what's legal or a legal measure of liability.
Again, it simply has to be shown that the person parking the vehicle knew or should have known that they were not suppose to park where they did _AND_ that the area where the vehicle was parked contributed to the accident in some way.
Here is a google search to further prove my point:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=illegally+parked+vehicle+liability
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 07:28 pm Post Subject:
OK, but in this case, this uninsured woman was not where she wasnt supposed to be physically. Legally, she shouldnt have been driving that vehicle. So, since her car was where all other cars are allowed to be, I do not consider her at fault at all, despite the fact that she was uninsured. She was rear ended. Of course you could argue that if she kept the illegal car off the road, the accident wouldnt have happened. Well, it probably would have, only with another vehicle instead. So, in the OP's case, she is 0% at fault. We'll know what happens if she writes back and tells us if the adverse carrier is seeking money for her percentage. I am willing to bet that they know that their insured is 100% at fault and will leave it alone. They dont want to get her mad. Juries are not to lenient on children being hurt by a careless driver that read-ended them. True, they arent crazy about uninsured drivers either, but, again, that is another matter.
We dont knoe the OPs situation. Maybe her check got lost in the mail and it canceled for non pay. Or maybe the check didnt clear. Maybe she intended to have insurance. If she really knew she had no insurance, then risking her kids safety was dead wrong but it doesnt make her more liable for being rear ended when stopped.
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:31 am Post Subject:
OK, but in this case, this uninsured woman was not where she wasnt supposed to be physically.
YES she was ! she was on the street! And she should not have been PERIOD..again, no way (in a pure comparative state let's say) that she would get the higher percentage....But I have handled many many claims with facts of loss exactly like these (minus mama goes to jail) and yes even arb.has given this uninsured, or unlicensed driver at least 10% negligence...
We'll know what happens if she writes back and tells us if the adverse carrier is seeking money for her percentage
Not necessarily, it will depend on the couple of things, first if the adjuster feels like taking this stance (which clearly they haven't otherwise they would've told her that when offering to settle)
l agree with tcope I have handled many many 'no parking, parked wrong direction, no ins, no license claims', and have won at least 10%, yes even in arb on these...
It appears the only claim is for the kids trauma, if hurt, (pointing to belly etc) why not back to the doctor then?
If she really knew she had no insurance, then risking her kids safety was dead wrong but it doesnt make her more liable for being rear ended when stopped.
Of course she knew, she couldn't get insurance if she wanted too because she was suspended bad enough that she was taken to jail!!! I still maintain, were I handling this claim, I would contribute the vast majority of her childrens trauma to her being taken away....THAT is the part I'm affirming is her responsiblity, (majority), the ''trauma'' of her going to jail, being separated from her kids when they were scared, we all know that cops don't take a mother away from her children especially in an accident that isn't her fault unless there is a GOOD reason. ............Not the physical damage to the vehicle or any true injury resulting from the impact. I am maintaining that portion of the claim (their trauma injury), is majority her negligence that contributed to it...the trauma of losing mom was greater than the accident trauma....
Why don't we allow her to go further (assuming she has NO responsiblity) and let her also sue the guy that hit her for all the citations, her being away from the kids etc? After all if the guy hadn't rearended her then the cops more than likely wouldn't have know she had a warrant right?
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 04:48 pm Post Subject:
I completely disagree with all of this. As I said, I NEVER lost a claim (with either the adverse carrier, nor Arb), because my insured was parked where they shoudlnt have been. If someone is rear ended, the person in the rear was following too closely, plain and simple. We are supposed to leave enough room to stop if we have to. Of course nobody does this, but that is the way it is supposed to be. So, if someone stopped, and the person behind rams them, the rammer is at fault. It is clear cut. If the person that was hit is an escaped convict, do you really think that the fault transfers over to them? That extra fact has nothing to do with which driver was at fault. The person in the rear, no matter how you slice it, was wrong for not stopping and bashing the car in front.
For argument's sake, say you borrow a friend's car. You are stopped and you get rammed in the rear. You did everything right, you stopped at red light waiting for it turn green. Some idiot rams you from behind. When the cops ask for the insurance card, they find out the car is not insured. Guess what... now YOU are at fault. Doesnt that sound idiotic? How can you be at fault when you were sitting at a traffic light and someone else hit you? I am not concerned that your car was uninsured. Fault is faut. Are you living in some assbackwards state like Louisanna or something? I am just curious where you get your logic from. You sound like the person at fault's attorney.
The uninsured part of the equasion is it's own circumstance. Her being stopped at a light, uninsured, contributed nothing to cause the car behind her to hit her. Do you agree with that? It could have been you or me where she was. So, if car #2 hit you, they are at fault. But if car #2 hit her, they are no longer at fault. Absolutely no logic there at all. Sorry. Fault is fault.
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 05:26 pm Post Subject:
wow, kmommy, look at this debate going on over your question. I hope all works out for you and your kids, please come back and update us. My thoughts are that If I am you and in your situation, insured or not. If I am rear ended, I am at no fault, the other driver should have had his/her vehicle under control. You not having insurance or a license is a separate legal issue that you will have to deal with on your own. The liablility of this accident should fall on the other driver.
Hope this all works out for you. When will you get your license back? I hope this is something that you are working on, especially since you do travel with your children, license and insurance is imparative, I don't know your circumstance, sometimes things happen in life that are out of our control, but I hope that all works out for you and that your license get reinstated soon, goodluck with your situation.
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 09:10 pm Post Subject:
Goodnatured, you are saying exactly what I say. I thought this forum lost it's mind. She did nothing to make this accident happen. That's all I'm saying. Of course she shouldnt have been on the road, but she was, and the same thing would have occured if it were her, you or me stopped at the light.
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:55 pm Post Subject:
CLEARLY YOU DIDN'T READ OR UNDERSTAND MY OPINION....I am saying she is the majority at fault for HER CHILDRENS 'TRAUMA' CLAIM! NOT THE ACCIDENT....
I still maintain, were I handling this claim, I would contribute the vast majority of her childrens trauma to her being taken away....THAT is the part I'm affirming is her responsiblity, (majority), the ''trauma'' of her going to jail, being separated from her kids when they were scared, we all know that cops don't take a mother away from her children especially in an accident that isn't her fault unless there is a GOOD reason. ............Not the physical damage to the vehicle or any true injury resulting from the impact. I am maintaining that portion of the claim (their trauma injury), is majority her negligence that contributed to it...the trauma of losing mom was greater than the accident trauma
Are you living in some assbackwards state like Louisanna or something? I am just curious where you get your logic from. You sound like the person at fault's attorney.
Your lack of intelligence is showing thru. Any adult that cannot simply debate a topic without turning it personel, is an imature bore. We don't call each other names on this site, and are able to debate and HAVE differing view points without becoming childish.........GROW THE HELL UP!!!!!!!!
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 04:47 am Post Subject:
Who's calling anyone names? I just know how things work here in NY. Some states are whacky, like ones that allow 13 year olds to get married or to marry members of their own family. This is just such a clear cut case as far as liability goes. I am 46 years old and do not need to grow up. It just seems like I am in some bizarro world where common sense is the opposite of what it really is. Someone stopped and being rearended is just what it is. The person getting hit is no more at fault if they are legally or illegally there. The moving car hit a stopped car. It is so clear cut.
I can debate anything and not call anyone names, which I never did. What trauma to her kids is she responsible for? They didnt see her get arrested. As far as getting hurt, the driver that rear-ended them caused all the trauma. This woman's lack of insurance is it's own set of problems, completely seperate from the liablity of the accident.
And I have more intelligence than most people do so it cannot be showing through. I am very knowledgable about this subject. I'm sorry if you read my posts and conclude that I am calling people names because that is not what I do.
Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:12 am Post Subject:
Look for the umteenth time, I'm not saying that the person that rearended her is not 100% at fault for the accident...What I am saying is that were I handling this claim it is my opinion that the majoritiy of this ''trauma'' claim she is claiming for her children can be laid at her feet, or minimally she contributed to it greatly by her lack of responsiblity by being arrested and taken away from her children after an accident, for driving on a suspended license. Surely you must agree that her being removed from her children after an accident and not able to provide a mother's comfort contributed to their ''trauma'', when apparently there are no other 'injuries'...I agree they should be compensated for their trip to the hospital or doctor to get checked out, but beyond that I still maintain that more ''trauma'' was inflicted by her absence, than by the actual impact or accident, (I'm also not buying 100% those children didn't see her leave etc).
You clearly have a distain for any place that isn't as metropolitan as NY,
Some states are whacky, like ones that allow 13 year olds to get married or to marry members of their own family.
NAME THEM!Are you living in some assbackwards state like Louisanna or something?
You've insulted every person that lives in the great state of LA...with your arrogance.I am just curious where you get your logic from. You sound like the person at fault's attorney.
Clearly an attempt at an insult not even cleverly vailed...what do we know about the attorney?I have found out my attorney has been in jail for the past 4 years for embezzlement.
I am 46 years old and do not need to grow up.
Then you are old enough to know that it is insulting to say the above captioned things...I can debate anything and not call anyone names, which I never did.
You clearly are leveling insults no only at me, but anyone living in LA or any other place south, as well as anyone disagreeing with your contention.What trauma to her kids is she responsible for?
MOMMY WENT TO JAIL!!!! not for no insurance you can't be arrested for that alone and you know it...ALL children want their mothers when they are stressed, not having them or being denied their mothers comfort is traumatic, that is surely obvious.They didnt see her get arrested.
I don't know that to be true, I know that's what she said, even if not she was not able to comfort them at all until she was released from custody, thereby causing trauma to them.As far as getting hurt, the driver that rear-ended them caused all the trauma.
I disagree.....This woman's lack of insurance is it's own set of problems, completely seperate from the liablity of the accident.
I agree, and we both know she wasn't arrested for lack of insurance...And I have more intelligence than most people do so it cannot be showing through
. What? You are soooooooo smart that no one can see it? I don't understand this comment....I am very knowledgable about this subject.
I'm not saying your not, I'm saying your ''style'' of defending your argument leaves alot to be desired....I'm sorry if you read my posts and conclude that I am calling people names because that is not what I do.
I accept your apology, and hope you will continue to debate points with respect, for all.Add your comment