Do I have a shot at getting a new car out of this accident?
May 15, 2009 9:04 PM Subscribe
Do I have a shot at getting a new car out of this accident?
I was in a car accident in which a man with no driver's license pulled out in front of me so suddenly that there was no way I could avoid hitting him. My car was totalled. I was not badly injured (just "soft tissue damage" and possibly some scarring, and anxiety) but my passenger was, and will be incapacitated for months.
The man was driving his father's truck, and we are going on the assumption that his father knew he did not have a driver's license and let him drive the truck anyways.
His insurance company is stalling, refusing to even say if he was covered under his father's policy. My insurance wants to get rid of my car while not settling anything else because it's costing them money to store my car at the tow yard. The Kelley Blue Book value is currently around $12500, due to excellent condition and low mileage. (I think when we bought it new it was about $18000). We owe roughly $8500. They (my insurance) would be writing the bank a check for the Blue Book value which would leave me with roughly $4000 towards another car.
I already have a lawyer in mind and we will be sitting down with him next week, but he has already advised that soft tissue damage really doesn't get anything except medical bills and the like. My friend, however, will be eligible for pain and suffering.
My question is, given the fact that the guy didn't have a license and his father probably knowingly let him drive his truck, is there a snowball's chance in hell that I can successfully go after either his insurance company or him and his dad themselves for the value of a brand new car of the same make and model that I drove? (I have checked the price and it would still be around $18000.) My car was in excellent condition (which the dealership's service department can attest to) and my driving record is nearly spotless (one speeding warning more than 10 years ago, where I didn't know I was in a hospital zone) and I truly feel that since my car was brand new when I bought it, I should get a brand new car now. I don't feel that a $4000 down payment towards a new car is really adequate compensation for everything I'm going through... I'd like to be put back in the situation I was in before the accident - at the very least, enough money for a 3-year-old car in excellent condition with low mileage.
Those of you who know who I am, I thank you for not outing me to the general public.
I was in a car accident in which a man with no driver's license pulled out in front of me so suddenly that there was no way I could avoid hitting him. My car was totalled. I was not badly injured (just "soft tissue damage" and possibly some scarring, and anxiety) but my passenger was, and will be incapacitated for months.
The man was driving his father's truck, and we are going on the assumption that his father knew he did not have a driver's license and let him drive the truck anyways.
His insurance company is stalling, refusing to even say if he was covered under his father's policy. My insurance wants to get rid of my car while not settling anything else because it's costing them money to store my car at the tow yard. The Kelley Blue Book value is currently around $12500, due to excellent condition and low mileage. (I think when we bought it new it was about $18000). We owe roughly $8500. They (my insurance) would be writing the bank a check for the Blue Book value which would leave me with roughly $4000 towards another car.
I already have a lawyer in mind and we will be sitting down with him next week, but he has already advised that soft tissue damage really doesn't get anything except medical bills and the like. My friend, however, will be eligible for pain and suffering.
My question is, given the fact that the guy didn't have a license and his father probably knowingly let him drive his truck, is there a snowball's chance in hell that I can successfully go after either his insurance company or him and his dad themselves for the value of a brand new car of the same make and model that I drove? (I have checked the price and it would still be around $18000.) My car was in excellent condition (which the dealership's service department can attest to) and my driving record is nearly spotless (one speeding warning more than 10 years ago, where I didn't know I was in a hospital zone) and I truly feel that since my car was brand new when I bought it, I should get a brand new car now. I don't feel that a $4000 down payment towards a new car is really adequate compensation for everything I'm going through... I'd like to be put back in the situation I was in before the accident - at the very least, enough money for a 3-year-old car in excellent condition with low mileage.
Those of you who know who I am, I thank you for not outing me to the general public.
This post was deleted for the following reason: at poster's request -- mathowie
It's not just a $4000 down payment, they're also paying off the $8500 you still owe. A blue book value of $12500 means that, in theory at least, you could buy exactly what you had. Here's how.
A similar age, mileage, and condition car that you had is worth, in theory, $12500. Put $4000 down. Borrow the other $8500. And there you go, more or less the same situation (granted there's more uncertainty since you haven't been the sole owner of the replacement car).
Accidents suck. Certainly, in the above scenario you're losing a lot in peace of mind, pain, anxiety, time, and so on. I'm not saying it's fair. But just that, if you look strictly at the car aspect of the equation--it is about the same.
posted by kprincehouse at 9:40 PM on May 15, 2009
A similar age, mileage, and condition car that you had is worth, in theory, $12500. Put $4000 down. Borrow the other $8500. And there you go, more or less the same situation (granted there's more uncertainty since you haven't been the sole owner of the replacement car).
Accidents suck. Certainly, in the above scenario you're losing a lot in peace of mind, pain, anxiety, time, and so on. I'm not saying it's fair. But just that, if you look strictly at the car aspect of the equation--it is about the same.
posted by kprincehouse at 9:40 PM on May 15, 2009
I'm pretty sure as far as insurance companies are concerned, the car declined a few grand in value when you drove it off the lot, so a new car...probably not.
I'd like to be put back in the situation I was in before the accident - at the very least, enough money for a 3-year-old car in excellent condition with low mileage.
I think you are most certainly entitled to that. Heck, I think you deserve a new car for being put through this crap in the first place, but the insurance dudes and the law probably won't agree with me there.
Another thing...you say the insurance company won't tell you whether or not he was insured under his father's policy. Um, is it even possible to have auto insurance if you don't have a license?
posted by futureisunwritten at 9:42 PM on May 15, 2009
I'd like to be put back in the situation I was in before the accident - at the very least, enough money for a 3-year-old car in excellent condition with low mileage.
I think you are most certainly entitled to that. Heck, I think you deserve a new car for being put through this crap in the first place, but the insurance dudes and the law probably won't agree with me there.
Another thing...you say the insurance company won't tell you whether or not he was insured under his father's policy. Um, is it even possible to have auto insurance if you don't have a license?
posted by futureisunwritten at 9:42 PM on May 15, 2009
I am sorry about your accident. However I feel the same way. This isn't a car you owned outright, this is a car that you had a loan on that you owed a great deal of money on. This is not the same as you owning a car -- new or otherwise -- that then gets totalled. Cars depreciate sort of rapidly and while I wouldn't say "don't under any circumstances try to get more than this" I don't think you lost the equivalent to a new car (that you owned) so it doesn't make sense to the insurance company to give you a new car.
posted by jessamyn at 9:43 PM on May 15, 2009
posted by jessamyn at 9:43 PM on May 15, 2009
Presumably $4,000 plus a $8,500 loan would be enough to buy a 3 year old car in excellent condition. If it is not, then you should challenge the Kelly blue book number with examples of what you can actually find for sale in your area.
My rule of thumb for cars like Toyota which hold their value pretty well is that they typically have a straight line depreciation of 10% a year, which would be about $540, which makes $12500 about right for a car in good condition that cost $18000 when new.
posted by metahawk at 9:47 PM on May 15, 2009
My rule of thumb for cars like Toyota which hold their value pretty well is that they typically have a straight line depreciation of 10% a year, which would be about $540, which makes $12500 about right for a car in good condition that cost $18000 when new.
posted by metahawk at 9:47 PM on May 15, 2009
I truly feel that
Expressions like this often precede weak arguments. You wouldn't have to say it if the facts were on your side. Sorry.
posted by PercussivePaul at 9:50 PM on May 15, 2009 [7 favorites]
Expressions like this often precede weak arguments. You wouldn't have to say it if the facts were on your side. Sorry.
posted by PercussivePaul at 9:50 PM on May 15, 2009 [7 favorites]
IAAL, but IANYL and TINLA.
The answers to your questions will likely depend on the particular laws of your jurisdiction and the particular facts of the situation, which probably haven't been fully unearthed yet.
I truly feel that since my car was brand new when I bought it, I should get a brand new car now.
Realize, though, that you had the benefit of using your car for x number of months/years after buying it, and it had depreciated accordingly. Tort law is predicated upon a person being "made whole" - not getting a windfall.
I hear this "but I really feel" or "I should get" language from clients from time to time: you need to keep in mind that your recovery is limited to what the framework pursuant to which you wish to recover is able to provide: going through your insurance company limits you to what is available under the language of the contract. Going through a lawsuit limits you to what is available at law. There is usually some flexibility and room for interpretation in both, which is what lawyers are for, but the claims you advance need to have some basis, or they won't go anywhere.
Also remember - and I'm sure your lawyer will tell you this - that when an individual person (or people) are sued, the viability of enforcing a judgment ought to be considered as well. When someone wins a judgment, the money doesn't just appear in their bank account. It's up to the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment. If the judgment debtors have money, there are ways to do this, but they don't or if all of their assets are non-liquid it can be difficult to do.
Frequently (again: your lawyer would know better) cases like this are very likely to settle, rather than go to a trial. In my jurisdiction - which is almost certainly not your jurisdiction - I think the typical course of action would be to determine whether there is a policy of insurance that could possibly cover the other driver for your losses, or in the alternative, if you have uninsured/underinsured coverage, go after your own insurer for what is available to you under your own policy. Negotiations ensue, eventually the parties reach an agreement everyone feels they can live with because trials are a big commitment of time and money and take years to work up to and are frequently not worth it.
In sum, this is a question for your lawyer. Quantification of damages is particular to each case and depends on a number of factors which some strangers on the internet - including me - won't know. My suggestion to you is to listen to what he tells you about what is feasible under the law and the applicable insurance policies. If something he says doesn't sound right, ask him to explain it. But don't get too hung up on what you feel you're entitled to - the proper inquiry is what the insurance policies and the applicable law can do for you, and that's a question you hire a lawyer to answer.
posted by AV at 9:56 PM on May 15, 2009 [2 favorites]
The answers to your questions will likely depend on the particular laws of your jurisdiction and the particular facts of the situation, which probably haven't been fully unearthed yet.
I truly feel that since my car was brand new when I bought it, I should get a brand new car now.
Realize, though, that you had the benefit of using your car for x number of months/years after buying it, and it had depreciated accordingly. Tort law is predicated upon a person being "made whole" - not getting a windfall.
I hear this "but I really feel" or "I should get" language from clients from time to time: you need to keep in mind that your recovery is limited to what the framework pursuant to which you wish to recover is able to provide: going through your insurance company limits you to what is available under the language of the contract. Going through a lawsuit limits you to what is available at law. There is usually some flexibility and room for interpretation in both, which is what lawyers are for, but the claims you advance need to have some basis, or they won't go anywhere.
Also remember - and I'm sure your lawyer will tell you this - that when an individual person (or people) are sued, the viability of enforcing a judgment ought to be considered as well. When someone wins a judgment, the money doesn't just appear in their bank account. It's up to the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment. If the judgment debtors have money, there are ways to do this, but they don't or if all of their assets are non-liquid it can be difficult to do.
Frequently (again: your lawyer would know better) cases like this are very likely to settle, rather than go to a trial. In my jurisdiction - which is almost certainly not your jurisdiction - I think the typical course of action would be to determine whether there is a policy of insurance that could possibly cover the other driver for your losses, or in the alternative, if you have uninsured/underinsured coverage, go after your own insurer for what is available to you under your own policy. Negotiations ensue, eventually the parties reach an agreement everyone feels they can live with because trials are a big commitment of time and money and take years to work up to and are frequently not worth it.
In sum, this is a question for your lawyer. Quantification of damages is particular to each case and depends on a number of factors which some strangers on the internet - including me - won't know. My suggestion to you is to listen to what he tells you about what is feasible under the law and the applicable insurance policies. If something he says doesn't sound right, ask him to explain it. But don't get too hung up on what you feel you're entitled to - the proper inquiry is what the insurance policies and the applicable law can do for you, and that's a question you hire a lawyer to answer.
posted by AV at 9:56 PM on May 15, 2009 [2 favorites]
Obviously you can sue the guy but do you think he actually has any money? The insurance company would be a better target, but talk to a lawyer.
posted by delmoi at 10:34 PM on May 15, 2009
posted by delmoi at 10:34 PM on May 15, 2009
...my driving record is nearly spotless
This doesn't matter in the slightest. The other guy was at fault. You aren't owed a new car because you don't have any tickets.
...and I truly feel that since my car was brand new when I bought it, I should get a brand new car now.
Ah, feelings. Too bad they can't take into consideration deprecation of a vehicle. My parents still have a 1988 Mazda that they bought new, but I'm guessing no one would argue that they should get a brand new car if it's wrecked. You aren't owed a new car because you bought a new car already.
I don't feel that a $4000 down payment towards a new car is really adequate compensation for everything I'm going through...
Again, the feelings. Yes, accidents suck. They really do. They turn life upside down and make things miserable for everyone involved - especially your passenger, it sounds like. You aren't getting just $4000 for a down payment. They're paying what you owed on the car. The $4000 is the difference. If you had actually owned the car it'd be a different story (because you wouldn't have that debt to pay), but as it is, the bank actually owns the car, they get payment first. But you aren't owed a new car because of the inconvenience.
Sorry, I know it sucks, but you aren't owed a new car.
posted by sephira at 5:50 AM on May 16, 2009
This doesn't matter in the slightest. The other guy was at fault. You aren't owed a new car because you don't have any tickets.
...and I truly feel that since my car was brand new when I bought it, I should get a brand new car now.
Ah, feelings. Too bad they can't take into consideration deprecation of a vehicle. My parents still have a 1988 Mazda that they bought new, but I'm guessing no one would argue that they should get a brand new car if it's wrecked. You aren't owed a new car because you bought a new car already.
I don't feel that a $4000 down payment towards a new car is really adequate compensation for everything I'm going through...
Again, the feelings. Yes, accidents suck. They really do. They turn life upside down and make things miserable for everyone involved - especially your passenger, it sounds like. You aren't getting just $4000 for a down payment. They're paying what you owed on the car. The $4000 is the difference. If you had actually owned the car it'd be a different story (because you wouldn't have that debt to pay), but as it is, the bank actually owns the car, they get payment first. But you aren't owed a new car because of the inconvenience.
Sorry, I know it sucks, but you aren't owed a new car.
posted by sephira at 5:50 AM on May 16, 2009
Not to rain on your parade, but you should be prepared for your insurance company to lowball the value of your car, as well.
posted by Fleebnork at 5:52 AM on May 16, 2009
posted by Fleebnork at 5:52 AM on May 16, 2009
It may depend on jurisdiction, but I think your insurance company should total your car and write you a check for the value, minus your deductible. Then your insurance company goes after the other insurance company. If your insurance company is made whole on the car they should refund your deductible to you also. I just went through this a couple of months ago. I had a check for my car within a week, and then 6 weeks later I got another check for my deductible. In my case, the other party was given a ticket for running a red light, and then found guilty in court when she fought the ticket. Was the other party in the accident written a ticket for causing the accident?
Also, don't discount soft tissue damage. Pain is pain, and if you are in pain for an extended period of time due to negligence on the part of somebody else you are certainly entitled to compensation IMO. I think these sorts of things are calculated as a multiple of the medical bills, but you'll definately want a specialist personal injury attorney to deal with all of that.
IANAL...
posted by COD at 6:12 AM on May 16, 2009
Also, don't discount soft tissue damage. Pain is pain, and if you are in pain for an extended period of time due to negligence on the part of somebody else you are certainly entitled to compensation IMO. I think these sorts of things are calculated as a multiple of the medical bills, but you'll definately want a specialist personal injury attorney to deal with all of that.
IANAL...
posted by COD at 6:12 AM on May 16, 2009
By "value of the car" I mean value minus what you still own the bank. Also, the Kelly Blue value that is applicable is the "private resale" value, which is usually the middle of the prices you get from KBB. FWIW, the KBB on my truck was $13, 500 and the insurance company gave me $15,500 for it.
posted by COD at 6:17 AM on May 16, 2009
posted by COD at 6:17 AM on May 16, 2009
New car? Depends.
The appropriate question is whether you have a legitimate lawsuit. And to answer your question, you need to speak to your attorney. And don't speak to just one if that one does not give you the confidence that (1) they know what they are doing and (2) that they intend to fight for you vigorously.
There are all kinds of avenues open to seek remuneration. Was this a company truck or personal? If it was a company truck, there is potential liability there. Either way, maybe the father has an umbrella insurance policy that can be tapped. There are also damages you may not be aware of that the attorney can work through with you.
But as far as a new car, you need to remember that a lawsuit is not a lottery ticket for you to get something new and cool. A lawsuit is about "making you whole." And before the accident, you had a leased car that you owe a bunch of money on. And to make you whole, you should be put in a situation where you have something close to a leased car that you owe a bunch of money on. You don't get to come out on top and get a windfall recovery. At least, you shouldn't. That's contrary to our tort law model.
posted by dios at 7:34 AM on May 18, 2009
The appropriate question is whether you have a legitimate lawsuit. And to answer your question, you need to speak to your attorney. And don't speak to just one if that one does not give you the confidence that (1) they know what they are doing and (2) that they intend to fight for you vigorously.
There are all kinds of avenues open to seek remuneration. Was this a company truck or personal? If it was a company truck, there is potential liability there. Either way, maybe the father has an umbrella insurance policy that can be tapped. There are also damages you may not be aware of that the attorney can work through with you.
But as far as a new car, you need to remember that a lawsuit is not a lottery ticket for you to get something new and cool. A lawsuit is about "making you whole." And before the accident, you had a leased car that you owe a bunch of money on. And to make you whole, you should be put in a situation where you have something close to a leased car that you owe a bunch of money on. You don't get to come out on top and get a windfall recovery. At least, you shouldn't. That's contrary to our tort law model.
posted by dios at 7:34 AM on May 18, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:17 PM on May 15, 2009