Last post on May 09, 2013 at 1:37 PM
You are in the Smart Shopper
What is this discussion about?
#5099 of 5324 Re: lilyowen [euphonium]
Sep 28, 2012 (8:10 pm)
It's not about distributing fault. It's about obtaining a release from the rear-ending party ... which would cite no admission of guilt, but a dollar figure to secure the release. At that point, still no court decision ... rear-ending party is protected and now pursuit begins of all other potentially liable parties, i.e., van driver/owner/business. Their potential knowledge of settlement of rear vehicle may bolster their negotiations, but fact remains that they would rather protect their insured and extinguish exposure through settlement than court where their risk remains and their defense costs soar.
File suit and invite everyone to the game at once and you lose this opportunity to pick off every potentially liable party one-by-one.
No shock that insurance costs continue to rise (along with profit). Redistribution of wealth that really only affects the average insured.
#5100 of 5324 Maybe I am missing your point
Oct 01, 2012 (10:17 am)
but here in GA, if your vehicle is stopped in the road, say, due to traffic ahead of you, and someone rear ends that stopped vehicle, the stopped vehicle carries no liability whatsoever...the charge to the driver who rear ended the stopped vehicle is "following too closely" as you have a duty to be aware of driving consition in front of you...
Now if somebody cut you off and you struck them in the rear because they cut you off and just missed clipping your bumper, that would be a different story...
But with all the traffic jams we have here, traffic often comes to a stop, one second driving 65 and the next coming to a stop...if you rearend the guy in front of you then YOU are at fault...
#5101 of 5324 Re: Maybe I am missing your point [marsha7]
Oct 01, 2012 (11:48 am)
You are 100% correct as we understand how the crash happened. GA must be a Contributory state rather than Comparative Negligence state.
#5102 of 5324 Re: Maybe I am missing your point [euphonium]
Oct 02, 2012 (8:55 am)
Heck no, a contributory negligence state, as I understand it, means that is the "victim" is even 1% at fault, they cannot recover from the other driver...contributory would be the WORST possible of all the types of law...
GA is a hybrid-comparative negligence state...true comparative would mean that each driver is assigned their percentage of fault, totalling up to 100% (obviously)...In GA, the injured party (victim) must be less than 50% at fault or they cannot recover from the other party...
Example for all of you: in a comparative state, if one is 40% at fault, any monetary award would be reduced by 40%, your percentage of fault...in GA, it is rarely reduced, but you cannot pursue the other driver unless the other driver is OVER 50% at fault...your percentage of fault must be less than 50% or you cannot recover from the other driver...
#5104 of 5324 Re: Maybe I am missing your point [marsha7]
Oct 02, 2012 (7:20 pm)
Well, complicated by the fact that this is arguably a three vehicle accident and the middle vehicle is negligent free.
All of the logic presented here makes perfect sense ... but none of it would prevent suit being filed and heard ... and likely victorious on behalf of the plaintiff based on the average jury these days.
#5105 of 5324 Re: Maybe I am missing your point [lilyowen]
Oct 03, 2012 (9:00 am)
Remember, anyone can file suit against anyone for anything, so even the at-fault party can file suit against the innocent party in an attempt to recover...
#5106 of 5324 Totalled a brand new loaner...dealership profits
Oct 09, 2012 (3:09 pm)
I posted this on another Edmunds forum, but was advised to post here instead...
In October of 2010, I brought my car into my dealer for service...it was a lease up in 4 months, and as I was waiting I started looking at the cars in the showroom and talking to a salesperson...they suggested taking a brand new model, driving it for a week (including a free tank of gas!), and seeing what I thought...sure, I thought, no harm here. I gave them my insurance information, and I assumed liability.
Next morning on way to school,I get t-boned and the car is totaled...fortunately neither my daughter or I was hurt. Dealer had car towed back to dealership, and my wife picked me up.
The dealership was paid by my insurance (less my deductible)...however, they were paid more than the sticker and also full tax...my guess is it was around 4K more than I was going to pay, plus about 9% tax. They called me to pay my deductible, I told them they had been paid more than enough, and I never heard from them again.
Of course, my insurance went up 60%...yuk.
I realize it's been nearly two years, but I don't think there is some statute of limitations...and if there is, I'd imagine I'm within the time frame, but I have a couple questions:
Can I ask the dealer to split any "profits", and are they obligated to in any way? I'm not looking to profit, but it would be nice to at least get the difference in my insurance premium. Also, do dealers have to pay the sales tax to the state (CA) in this instance...how does that work? Do they take ownership of the wreck?
Thanks...it's been bugging me for a while now, and I figure I might as well do something before it's too late, if it already isn't.
#5107 of 5324 Re: Totalled a brand new loaner...dealership profits [manku]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Oct 10, 2012 (6:37 am)
Oh this is a dandy case for a lawsuit----very interesting. If someone "lends" you a car, I would think that the wreck is totally on their dime, unless their insurance subrogates the claim with the insurance company of the party at fault. If you were at fault, then perhaps that's what happened. The dealer's insurance paid him off then got the $$$ from your insurance company. If you were not at fault, then maybe it gets all the more complicated. Of course I don't know what you "signed" when you took the car, so maybe this is all hot air at this point.
#5108 of 5324 Re: Totalled a brand new loaner...dealership profits [manku]
Oct 10, 2012 (2:00 pm)
That your renewal increased 60% indicates the crash was your fault. What the amount the dealer recovered from your company is none of your business. Had they collected less than the value of the destroyed, the dealer could come after you. That the dealer collected more than what you think they should have, doesn't excuse you from paying your deductible. Remembering you were the cause of the crash.