by Pitsy43 » Wed Sep 10, 2008 03:31 pm
My fiance was driving my car when he made a left turn at a green stop light. An oncomming car sped up to make the light and hit him in the rear, behind the back tire. I know in general he would be at fault, but the other car had no insurance, so in the state of New Jersey, should not have been on the road. My insurance company is attributing 75% of fault to us. If it were 50% or less, we could get coverage without the deductible. Shouldn't a person without insurance be more at fault if they were not supposed to legally be on the road?
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 02:24 am Post Subject: insurance
TSCOPE..............I 'see your point'. You're right..that IS life. However......the INSURED driver shouldn't 'suffer' because someone chose to drive with out Insurance.
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:57 am Post Subject:
Hey Einstien, first off this post is more than a year old, secondly your choice of a screen name shows you to be a low class coward, thirdly you are WRONG..
From the dept of ins state of NJ..
When filing an Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist claim it is important to remember that your company "stands in the shoes" of the Uninsured/Underinsured driver and will only pay your claim if the other driver was legally responsible for your damages, or in other words, at-fault for the accident. Under New Jersey’s Comparative Negligence law, you can only collect damages if your degree of liability does not exceed that of other driver(s) in the accident.
As you can tell by the above example, an uninsured driver is NOT automatically 100% at fault...and another thing, brain child...I've NEVER read a 'no pay no play' law that disallowed "economic losses"...(look up the term) :roll: Wait here you go Skippy, right straight from your state's no pay no play law,As comparative negligence allows for more than one person to be at fault for an accident, your company can reduce the settlement of your Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist claim by any percentage of fault that may be attributable to you.
Example:
After being involved in an accident with another driver you find out from their insurance company that they did not carry any insurance. You then submit your damages totaling $10,000, to your own company for reimbursement under Uninsured Motorist. Your company investigates the claim and determines that the uninsured driver was 80% at-fault for the accident and you were 20% responsible. Under these circumstances, your company would be responsible for 80% of your damages up to the limits on your policy, or $8,000, and would end up paying you $7,500 after applying the $500 policy deductible.
“obtain automobile liability coverage or lose the right to sue for your injuries.”
New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5 prevents three groups of people from suing for personal injuries in automobile accidents: (1) Owners of cars who are required to be insured and who are not; (2) Drivers operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol; and (3) Drivers who act with intent to injure others.
These laws have ZERO, to do with liability determination..(as do ALL no pay no play laws)Now, there you go BAM!! , not only are you NOT "betterthanlori" you are not fit to carry my coffee on your best day son..
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 05:22 am Post Subject: UNINSURED MOTORISTS
I WAS SITTING IN THE DRIVER SEAT OF A PARKED VEHICLE WITH THE CAR TURNED OFF IN A PARKING LOT. A 16 YEAR OLD KID REVERSED OUT OF HIS PARKING SPACE AND HIT THE FRONT END OF MY VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE THAT I WAS SITTING IN IS INSURED TO SOMEONE ELSE.NOT ME. HOW WOULD THIS PLAY OUT???
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 05:44 am Post Subject: UNINSURED MOTORISTS
I AM IN CALIFORNIA.
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:46 am Post Subject:
If the kid hit a parked car....Should be the kids fault and his carrier will handle the damage(s).
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 04:33 pm Post Subject:
Please don't YELL and this should have been a new thread.
If the other person is at fault, their insurance should address the damage for the owner of the vehicle you were in. I'm guessing you were legally parked?
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:16 am Post Subject:
California law also understands that an intoxicated person in the driver's seat, whether the vehicle is running or not (at least if the keys are in available to start the car), can be charged with and convicted of driving under the influence. The car does not have to be in motion.
Not that this has anything to do with the question -- Lori's and tcope's answers are both correct -- just thought I'd spice up an worn out thread.
Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:56 am Post Subject:
Not that this has anything to do with the question -- Lori's and tcope's answers are both correct -- just thought I'd spice up an worn out thread.
:lol:Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:55 am Post Subject:
The car does not have to be in motion.
Great info Max. Actually, that's how it should be when it comes to dealing with DUI issues. If someone gets drunk and is not in his senses, then he might stand in someone else's way.
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 02:00 pm Post Subject: insurance
True, MAX!! Actually...a family member, of mine, was sitting in a parking lot, in front of a bar (of all places), with the keys in the ignition. However.....the car was at a dead stop and the motor wasn't running. But, because the keys were in the ignition, he was charged with a DUI.
Add your comment