by my.cindicate » Mon May 16, 2011 10:43 pm
This is my first time on this forum but my message came out all wrong. I didn't mean for it to be that short. On my end the body message was full and the subject was short. It posted backwards. I have no idea why. Anyhow here goes...
I sued the deadbeats who let an excluded unlicensed driver use their car and hit mine. I won. Their insurance won't pay. This is full circle. The car was NOT reported stolen. They need to pay for the people I sued are their insured.
I sued the deadbeats who let an excluded unlicensed driver use their car and hit mine. I won. Their insurance won't pay. This is full circle. The car was NOT reported stolen. They need to pay for the people I sued are their insured.
Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 11:57 pm Post Subject:
The other person's insurance company has a contract with their insured, period. You have no input as to their agreement. Since CA is not a direct action state, you can only pursue the party that caused your loss. This was not the insurance company company. You have a civil matter against the other driver/owner and you can certainly pursue this matter. But again, the other person's insurance company denying coverage to their insured is a matter only between those two parties.
What you _can_ do is feel free to recommend to the other party that they hire an attorney to pursue a Bad Faith claim against their own carrier for an incorrect denial of coverage. The at fault party can pursue this, you cannot. I can't say that they will do this, that the will find an attorney that will do it, or that they would even have a case... but it's a way for you to possibly get paid. The alternative is that you pursue your judgement. Does CA allow you to garnish someone's wages? I know UT allows this (basically reducing someone's pay to just above minimum wage). You file a Wit with the court system for the person to provide info on their assets as well as their income. Once you have that info you can file to have the court garnish the person's wages directly. Basically the employer pays the court (and the court pays you). I'm pretty sure this is how it works. Again, I don't know what is allowed in CA.
Add your comment