Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)
14376 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 11:50 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 05, 2009 10:42 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: tallman1 (Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm) I wonder if the "perp" will be able to weasle out of this one. The reason I say this is that my co-worker's wife had her car struck in a hit-and-run incident in a parking lot. There was a witness who recorded the license number of the car that left the scene, but didn't get a good description of the driver. When the case went to trial, the woman owner of the car got off because it couldn't be proved that she was driving the car at the time of the incident. 
|
|
| SUV sideswipes elephant in Oklahoma (MSNBC) | |
|
|
|
Replying to: tallman1 (Nov 05, 2009 1:05 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: 210delray (Nov 05, 2009 5:43 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Nov 06, 2009 8:55 am) On a similar note, my 2004 Camry was involved in a hit-and-run in the middle of the night (no witnesses) while my son had it for several months in Los Angeles. He had his own insurance policy, because my company wouldn't insure cars kept in California, even though we never transferred the title. Long story short, his insurance company regarded the $4,000+ damage as a collision claim and wouldn't pay the $1,000 deductible. I thought it should have been covered as an uninsured motorist claim, but their defense is that because the perpetrator's identity was unknown ("ghost driver"), they don't know with 100% certainty that another driver was involved in the first place.
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Nov 06, 2009 8:55 am) In this case, I think the coverage on the vehicle driven by the perpetrator should have covered the damages. If the owner was not driving, then it would be up to her and her insurance company to pursue damages from that individual independently of the restitution to the victim.
|
|
|
Replying to: xwesx (Nov 06, 2009 10:12 am) As for the phantom car causing the damage, that's what the Underinsured Motorist Property Damage clause covers. However, the deductible is when the at fault, hit & run, phantom vehicle is eventually identified, the UMPD collision drops down to $100 from $500. UM Bodily Injury does NOT cover the vehicle.
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Nov 06, 2009 2:59 pm) That's true, but if it were required that all licensed drivers carry liability insurance, that would be a non-issue. |
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Nov 06, 2009 2:59 pm) also i understand that a car that gets crunched while parked, with no witness and no driver identified, it will be covered under insurance *comprehensive* claim just the same as random vandalism, fire, theft. and the comprehensive deductible would apply. caveat: i rarely have had to file insurance claims and it's been decades since i had to file one like that discussed here ( after my forensic analysis indicated that my 1985 Z28 was "nicked" or "kissed" by an MBTA bus, all the way down the drivers side. the bus had plastic side-panels but it was a big-$ bodywork/repaint. ) so my info could be way out of date and not apply to states other than MA, back when the MA insurance industry was state-controlled.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)
