by Guest » Mon Aug 10, 2009 04:21 pm
Just recently I was involved in a crash in Texas where I feel a driver intentionally hit me with a very large truck causing roughly $8k in damage to my 2008 Scion TC. I say he intentionally did it because we exchanged some words at an intersection and he chased me down a hill and side-swiped me. He then tried to drive away from the scene, but I called the police and was able to provide them turn-by-turn directions to where he was going. He was arrested at the scene.
I am now dealing with the insurance companies, doctors, and will soon be looking at hiring an attorney. I suffered back injuries and re-aggravated a foot injury that I now may need surgery on. I have already missed work without pay, and am still in a lot of pain. I will be missing more work as this process draws on. My main question is, if it cannot be proved that he intentionally hit me, I am under the impression that my law suit would be directed at his insurance company. If he DID intentionally hit me, then I would be filing a law suit against him directly. Is this correct?
Also, if the police determine that he did not intentionally hit me, would the insurance company still have a way to deny the claim/law suit based on THEM (the insurance company) determining that he intentionally hit me?
Thank you for any insight you can provide. I very much appreciate it.
I am now dealing with the insurance companies, doctors, and will soon be looking at hiring an attorney. I suffered back injuries and re-aggravated a foot injury that I now may need surgery on. I have already missed work without pay, and am still in a lot of pain. I will be missing more work as this process draws on. My main question is, if it cannot be proved that he intentionally hit me, I am under the impression that my law suit would be directed at his insurance company. If he DID intentionally hit me, then I would be filing a law suit against him directly. Is this correct?
Also, if the police determine that he did not intentionally hit me, would the insurance company still have a way to deny the claim/law suit based on THEM (the insurance company) determining that he intentionally hit me?
Thank you for any insight you can provide. I very much appreciate it.
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 05:31 pm Post Subject:
The fact of the matter is that he did indeed hit you, and if the insurance company was able to prove that he did it intentionally, they may refuse to pay for his damage...but they still would most likely be required to pay for your damages. You can sue him directly whether or not it is proven that he is at fault, it's simply paperwork to file in court.
Hire an attorney yesterday, and he will help you sort it all out!
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 06:51 pm Post Subject:
If his insurance company can show that he untented to hit you, they may deny _your_ claims.. as intentional acts are not covered under the auto policy. So you may not want to be of the opinion that he did this intentionally. of course, that's an up hill battle for the carrier and it also depends if he owns the vehicle or someone else owns it.
I guess I don't need to mention that its never a good idea to "exchange words" with someone because you were upset with them. I'm guessing you _might_ have heard about road rage?
Your complaint is against the driver and/or owner. In TX you don't have an action against the insurance company as they did not cause your loss.
Add your comment