Last post on Sep 20, 2013 at 8:25 AM
You are in the Smart Shopper
What is this discussion about?
#5102 of 5338 Re: Maybe I am missing your point [euphonium]
Oct 02, 2012 (7:55 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 5338 Re: Maybe I am missing your point [marsha7]
Oct 02, 2012 (6:20 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 5338 Re: Maybe I am missing your point [lilyowen]
Oct 03, 2012 (8:00 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 5338 Totalled a brand new loaner...dealership profits
Oct 09, 2012 (2:09 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 5338 Re: Totalled a brand new loaner...dealership profits [manku]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Oct 10, 2012 (5:37 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 5338 Re: Totalled a brand new loaner...dealership profits [manku]
Oct 10, 2012 (1:00 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.
Oct 10, 2012 (4:54 pm)
Most insurance contracts have language that will extend coverage to a rented or borrowed vehicle if it is temporarily replacing your covered vehicle. My auto policy reads as follows-
Under the heading of 'Other Automobiles Covered'- "Your coverage also applies to certain other automobiles. It applies to an automobile you do not own which is a temporary substitute for your automobile. Your automobile must be out of use because of breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction."
Technically, if a dealership allowed me an extended test drive (be it hours or days) but my car wasn't out of service, my insurance might not cover it. The key factor is that my car is "out of service" and the loaner/rental is a temporary replacement.
Earlier this year, I was car shopping and the Volvo dealer let me take a car for the weekend. I called my insurance company to let them know and they just asked for the make/model and how long I would be driving it. But there is no guarantee that they would have covered it if I hadn't called in advance and ended up having an accident!
In reality, most people wouldn't even think to call the insurance company in a that kind of situation. But I'm an Insurance Agent, so my first thought in any situation is "am I covered?"!!!
As to whether the OP has any claim on any perceived 'surplus' payment to the dealer, the answer is NO. Your negligence resulted in the destruction of the dealer's asset (car). The settlement between your insurer and the dealer probably consisted of more than just the price of the car. It is likely that they were compensated for "loss of use" or something similar as well as payment for their time and effort dealing with the claim.
But the main factor is that you didn't suffer any sort of financial loss, therefore you are NOT entitled to any compensation from your insurer.'
As for the 60% increase in premium, that's quite steep! If this is the only accident you've had in the past three years and you have no violations for at least three years, you should consider shopping for new coverage!
#5110 of 5338 Re: Insurance [igozoomzoom]
by MrShift@Edmunds HOST
Oct 10, 2012 (5:08 pm)
yeah that's the part that was tricky for me---the dealer basically SOLICITED the driver to take the car--it wasn't a substitute for a vehicle being repaired. This is why I thought the wreck might be on the dealer's dime.
#5111 of 5338 Re: Insurance [igozoomzoom]
Oct 11, 2012 (10:21 am)
Thanks for the response...
1. There really was no "loss" for the dealer...this was a brand new car they were going to sell me...basically they got full sticker and then more because I totalled the car! Yes, they had to tow the car back to the dealer (5 miles away)...that couldn't cost them more than a couple hundred at most, if not zero. I saw the settlement...it was based on sticker...somehow, the dealership convinced the insurance company that my car was worth 4K more than sticker!
2. My premium increase was steep, but at least it's only for a year! And I was paying very little. Also, since it was my fault (70/30), the other driver (20 year old Honda) not only got full replacement but 50K in personal injury...there was no ambulance, fyi...just soft tissue damage is my guess.
3. My feeling about this is that if I'm on the hook if the dealer gets underpaid, shouldn't I share in the profits if they are overpaid? That would seem fair, but then again, life isn't fair, is it?
4. The deductible was to be paid directly to the dealer...however, when I said they had been paid more than enough, they dropped the issue. This, to me at least, is a sign that they were overpaid and they know it.
I know I should just forget about it, but I just want to exhaust my options beforehand.