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: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:30 pm Post Subject:
reside in Indiana.
Doesn't help (actually, it doesn't matter).
When someone sues another person, they have to provide a "cause of action" or the complaint will be dismissed. So these folks have chosen to characterize your husband as "reckless". So what?
It will be their responsibility to PROVE their claim. What evidence can they provide that shows your husband was operating his vehicle carelessly, recklessly, or negligently? If none, the case will be tossed. Although it does not look good that your husband was uninsured at the time, it makes no difference.
Having insurance does not mean a person is a good driver. Plenty of insured drivers drive recklessly. Not having insurance simply means that person is 100% financially at-risk for any damages he/she causes, including legal damages. But for anyone to collect, they have to prove their damages and they have to prove who was at fault.
If it even gets to trial, what would the judge or jury think about the injuries to persons who chose not to wear seatbelts? That's as least as reckless as most other persons' poor driving skills.
You ask about your husband "countersuing". What is his "cause of action" -- what damages did he incur? Or are you just asking if he should sue the old folks because they sued him?
I haven't looked at Indiana law, but most states have adopted a form of tort reform that prevents an uninsured driver from collecting even $0.01 more than his/her actual damages (property loss, medical expenses) -- NOTHING for pain and suffering.
Are both parties liable like the police determined?
Your mistake here is that you believe the police are responsible for determining liability. They are not. The insurance companies and/or the courts have that responsibility. Courts only become involved when the parties cannot agree about the responsibility.
Add your comment