Insurance and car accidents, take 2
May 14, 2018 7:46 AM Subscribe
I'm still dealing with the fallout of this accident that happened in February. Turns out the insurance I bought only covers the damage to the car I was driving, and doesn't have liability. So the other driver's insurance is asking me to cover his damages. The accident was the fault of a 3rd party and I don't know how to proceed.
The basic facts are that semi truck cut me off, forcing me into the other lane, where I hit an SUV. I was driving a rental car. Both my car and the SUV have damage. The police report states that the driver of the semi truck "failed to keep in designated lane."
Since the accident, here are the order of events from my perspective:
The basic facts are that semi truck cut me off, forcing me into the other lane, where I hit an SUV. I was driving a rental car. Both my car and the SUV have damage. The police report states that the driver of the semi truck "failed to keep in designated lane."
Since the accident, here are the order of events from my perspective:
- I filed a claim with my insurance company, give the rental company the claim # and other details and figured they'll work it out
- The SUV driver's insurance sent me a letter that said after their "investigation" (lol) they found me at fault. They are requesting reimbursement for $2500. They said I can set up a payment plan within 20 days or it will go to a collections company (time runs out May 22). They included the police report.
- I sent them a certified letter in which I do not admit fault and told them to contact my insurance company.
- The semi driver's insurance company called me to talk. I did not say anything and told them to contact my insurance.
- My insurance company sent me a letter informing me that I do not have liability insurance, just collision. I read the policy closely and they are correct. I do not have any other insurance.
I'm confused. You have collision coverage, but not liability? Who sold you this insurance? That's exactly backwards of what you is actually required. Typically, you buy liability coverage, and the collision is an optional add-on. If that's not how it was represented to you, you might want to contact your state's Insurance Commissioner and file a complaint.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:08 AM on May 14, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 8:08 AM on May 14, 2018 [2 favorites]
Have you called your credit card company to see if their insurance will cover this?
posted by CiaoMela at 8:23 AM on May 14, 2018
posted by CiaoMela at 8:23 AM on May 14, 2018
Response by poster: From the policy I bought (I rented the car and bought the policy through Kayak if it is relevant)
posted by AFABulous at 8:24 AM on May 14, 2018
Individual TravelFrom state law
Insurance Policy
Collision Damage Insurance
Your plan includes the following coverage, up to the limit shown.
Please see your policy for information about how our insurance
works.
Rental Car Physical Damage Coverage: $40,000.00
[...]
The Policy provides coverage for the following situations:
1. The Rental Car is damaged while You are driving or while
the Rental Car is left unattended during the Scheduled
Rental Period;
2. The Rental Car is stolen during the Scheduled Rental
Period;
3. The Rental Car is damaged as a result of a cause other
than collision (for example: fire, storm, vandalism or theft)
during the Scheduled Rental Period.
No lessor or rental company may for compensation rent or lease any motor vehicle unless there is filed with the department on a form prescribed by the department a certificate for a good and sufficient bond or policy of insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do an automobile liability insurance or surety business in this state. The certificate shall provide that the insurer which issued it will be liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle in the amounts set forth in s. 344.01 (2) (d). No lessor or rental company complying with this subsection, and no lessor or rental company entering into or acquiring an interest in any contract for the rental or leasing of a motor vehicle for which any other lessor or rental company has complied with this subsection, is liable for damages caused by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle by another person.So it sounds like Hertz should not have rented to me in the first place?
posted by AFABulous at 8:24 AM on May 14, 2018
Response by poster: Have you called your credit card company to see if their insurance will cover this?
They are very specific that they cover damage to the rental car only, and in any case it is beyond the 60 day mandatory reporting period.
posted by AFABulous at 8:25 AM on May 14, 2018
They are very specific that they cover damage to the rental car only, and in any case it is beyond the 60 day mandatory reporting period.
posted by AFABulous at 8:25 AM on May 14, 2018
Do you own a car? If so, your personal car insurance might cover rentals.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:28 AM on May 14, 2018
posted by rabbitrabbit at 8:28 AM on May 14, 2018
Response by poster: As stated in the question, I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER INSURANCE.
In any case, I DID NOT CAUSE THE ACCIDENT. The questions are: Should I send another letter to the SUV's insurance company telling them to contact the semi driver's insurance? Does this stop the clock on the 20 days before they send me to a collection office? Should I call them (in addition to the letter)? Should I call the semi driver's insurance company? Should I get a lawyer now, or if not now, at what point?
posted by AFABulous at 8:34 AM on May 14, 2018
In any case, I DID NOT CAUSE THE ACCIDENT. The questions are: Should I send another letter to the SUV's insurance company telling them to contact the semi driver's insurance? Does this stop the clock on the 20 days before they send me to a collection office? Should I call them (in addition to the letter)? Should I call the semi driver's insurance company? Should I get a lawyer now, or if not now, at what point?
posted by AFABulous at 8:34 AM on May 14, 2018
Based on your update, Hertz had liability coverage on the car, which would cover your alleged negligence. Your comment "So it sounds like Hertz should not have rented to me in the first place?," presumes that Hertz suddenly became very stupid and forgot to look into the laws of Wisconsin before setting up shop there decades ago, which is implausible.
You can point out to the other party(ies) that you should be covered by Hertz's insurance. You may well need a lawyer to sort this out.
posted by JimN2TAW at 8:38 AM on May 14, 2018
You can point out to the other party(ies) that you should be covered by Hertz's insurance. You may well need a lawyer to sort this out.
posted by JimN2TAW at 8:38 AM on May 14, 2018
If you haven't spoken to Hertz yet, that's probably your next call. You might then direct the SUV driver's insurance to Hertz as well.
posted by Lyn Never at 8:46 AM on May 14, 2018
posted by Lyn Never at 8:46 AM on May 14, 2018
I suggest you take a look at the Hertz rental agreement, which right near the top spells out the terms of liability protection.
Hertz' liability protection is secondary to any other insurance coverage available to you. If you do not have liability insurance and/or the limits of liability of the insurance coverage available to you are not sufficient to cover claims by others against you, and Hertz, as the vehicle owner, provides liability protection due to an accident, you will indemnify Hertz for any and all payments made.
So you're almost certainly going to get nothing from Hertz, you've pretty might singed your rights away there. If it were me I'd set up a payment plan and find a way to pay back the 2500, because it's probably going to cost in excess of that if you get a lawyer involved.
If you had your own insurance policy, you could get your company to go after the 3rd party, but also keep in mind that there is contributory negligence in Wisconsin. I've personally been involved in a hit-and-run as a pedestrian and had my own insurance company claim contributory negligence when I tried to settle the claim, so you're going to run into some resistance if you go that route on your own with a much less black-and-white claim.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 9:12 AM on May 14, 2018 [1 favorite]
Hertz' liability protection is secondary to any other insurance coverage available to you. If you do not have liability insurance and/or the limits of liability of the insurance coverage available to you are not sufficient to cover claims by others against you, and Hertz, as the vehicle owner, provides liability protection due to an accident, you will indemnify Hertz for any and all payments made.
So you're almost certainly going to get nothing from Hertz, you've pretty might singed your rights away there. If it were me I'd set up a payment plan and find a way to pay back the 2500, because it's probably going to cost in excess of that if you get a lawyer involved.
If you had your own insurance policy, you could get your company to go after the 3rd party, but also keep in mind that there is contributory negligence in Wisconsin. I've personally been involved in a hit-and-run as a pedestrian and had my own insurance company claim contributory negligence when I tried to settle the claim, so you're going to run into some resistance if you go that route on your own with a much less black-and-white claim.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 9:12 AM on May 14, 2018 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: So what you're all saying is I should completely ignore the fact that the semi driver caused this accident?
posted by AFABulous at 9:18 AM on May 14, 2018
posted by AFABulous at 9:18 AM on May 14, 2018
Honestly, if you can find a lawyer who will do a consult, do it now. My wife is out of town getting deposed for a suit about a car accident that happened a couple years ago, and our lawyer has been a godsend in sorting out what goes to who and when (and nipped in the bud some very shady attempts by the other insurance company to weasel out of things.)
posted by restless_nomad at 9:19 AM on May 14, 2018
posted by restless_nomad at 9:19 AM on May 14, 2018
So what you're all saying is I should completely ignore the fact that the semi driver caused this accident?
That's a decision for a court. I too have a police report that says I was hit and run as a pedestrian, didn't stop my insurance company (that I paid a lot of money to over the years and of course no longer use) from claiming that I was contributorily negligent when I tried to collect on my uninsured motorist coverage. It was a months long process in which I was deposed and had to threaten to sue before it was settled.
I suggest you think long and hard about what road you want to go down. Insurance companies will deny claims for _any_ reason they can find. I'm sure an adjuster can find several reasons to deny giving you any money no matter what your police report says. Ultimately you'll either have to sue or threaten to sue to get anything done - how much do you think that will cost?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 9:24 AM on May 14, 2018
That's a decision for a court. I too have a police report that says I was hit and run as a pedestrian, didn't stop my insurance company (that I paid a lot of money to over the years and of course no longer use) from claiming that I was contributorily negligent when I tried to collect on my uninsured motorist coverage. It was a months long process in which I was deposed and had to threaten to sue before it was settled.
I suggest you think long and hard about what road you want to go down. Insurance companies will deny claims for _any_ reason they can find. I'm sure an adjuster can find several reasons to deny giving you any money no matter what your police report says. Ultimately you'll either have to sue or threaten to sue to get anything done - how much do you think that will cost?
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 9:24 AM on May 14, 2018
If the semi driver did not get a ticket, and you're the one who literally changed lanes and hit the other car, you are the cause of accident as far as the authorities are concerned.
I get that it sucks (I've been in the same situation) but fighting this issue is almost certainly hopeless.
posted by pantarei70 at 9:26 AM on May 14, 2018 [3 favorites]
I get that it sucks (I've been in the same situation) but fighting this issue is almost certainly hopeless.
posted by pantarei70 at 9:26 AM on May 14, 2018 [3 favorites]
The issue is that typically, one's insurance company would defend you against liability claims against you (and by proxy, them.) It appears that you may have had no liability coverage, so no insurance co has skin in the game to defend you/ attempt to assign liability to another party (the semi driver.) It does seem odd that Hertz wouldn't verify liability coverage if it's legally mandated in the state you were in.
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 9:35 AM on May 14, 2018
posted by Larry David Syndrome at 9:35 AM on May 14, 2018
You should contact a lawyer ASAP and get a consultation. You'll want to verify that you do not, in any circumstance or under any condition, have liability coverage, and that, should you write a check for $2500, that the whole issue will be over and done with forever.
It really really sucks, and for many of us, $2,500 might as well be $25,000 or $250,000. The silver lining is that it's $2500, and not $250,000. It could have been $250,000.
Who is your insurance company in your point #3, above? Is it your credit card? AFAIK, the credit card does in fact only cover collision. If it's not the credit card, do you have your own auto insurance policy? Usually tied to a car you own? I would be really quite shocked if you have an auto policy that is comp and collision but does not include liability coverage.
posted by everythings_interrelated at 9:36 AM on May 14, 2018
It really really sucks, and for many of us, $2,500 might as well be $25,000 or $250,000. The silver lining is that it's $2500, and not $250,000. It could have been $250,000.
Who is your insurance company in your point #3, above? Is it your credit card? AFAIK, the credit card does in fact only cover collision. If it's not the credit card, do you have your own auto insurance policy? Usually tied to a car you own? I would be really quite shocked if you have an auto policy that is comp and collision but does not include liability coverage.
posted by everythings_interrelated at 9:36 AM on May 14, 2018
Response by poster: "My insurance company" is the insurance I bought on kayak.com when I reserved the car. The company name is Allianz. I do not have my own auto insurance (I don't own a car). My credit card does not cover liability and it's outside the window for a claim anyway.
I've been advised by a couple people off-thread to contact a PI attorney. I have a friend with a business attorney so I'm asking him for a referral.
posted by AFABulous at 9:39 AM on May 14, 2018
I've been advised by a couple people off-thread to contact a PI attorney. I have a friend with a business attorney so I'm asking him for a referral.
posted by AFABulous at 9:39 AM on May 14, 2018
If you purchased from Kayak, you've only bought insurance for damage on the rental car - not liability insurance. From the 40,000 dollar figure, it sounds like you bought the 'Rental Car Damage Protector' package. This is a policy for people who typically have their own car insurance but are renting a car while traveling.
I think if you go the legal route you're going to find that you're out of luck - it's your responsibility to maintain sufficient liability coverage, which you didn't do. Even if Hertz is actually liable (which they may be), Hertz will come after you to collect damages because of the indemnification language in the rental terms. I know it's frustrating, but fighting this with a lawyer based on the facts you've given here is going to be much more frustrating I think.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 9:54 AM on May 14, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think if you go the legal route you're going to find that you're out of luck - it's your responsibility to maintain sufficient liability coverage, which you didn't do. Even if Hertz is actually liable (which they may be), Hertz will come after you to collect damages because of the indemnification language in the rental terms. I know it's frustrating, but fighting this with a lawyer based on the facts you've given here is going to be much more frustrating I think.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 9:54 AM on May 14, 2018 [1 favorite]
IANAL - I think possibly that if the truck moved into your lane and you swerved to avoid him and hit that other car then you are liable for making a poor choice in how you avoided the accident. If you didn't swerve and the truck hit you the truck would be at fault. Under this theory, the truck driver would not be liable for your damage to the other car. HOWEVER - I AM NOT A LAWYER - you need a real lawyer to find out if you can hold the truck driver responsible.
However, in the meanwhile, I (random internet stranger) would send another letter to the SUV insurance company saying that you believe you are not at fault and they should contact the semi's insurance company (which you have since they called you, right?) It might not work but it is a cheap way to keep them off your back and buy you a little time.
posted by metahawk at 1:09 PM on May 14, 2018 [1 favorite]
However, in the meanwhile, I (random internet stranger) would send another letter to the SUV insurance company saying that you believe you are not at fault and they should contact the semi's insurance company (which you have since they called you, right?) It might not work but it is a cheap way to keep them off your back and buy you a little time.
posted by metahawk at 1:09 PM on May 14, 2018 [1 favorite]
Short version: you need a lawyer.
Long version: in a three party collision, the third car (call it C) doesn't go after the first car (A), they go after the car that actually hit them (B) even if the driver of that car was not at fault. If the driver of car B has a policy, then what tends to happen is that B's liability carrier pays out to C, then turns around and goes after A for the same amount. This process is called subrogation. If C has uninsured or underinsured coverage (UM), then C's policy might pay the damages out first (so the car can get repaired and get on the road) and then subrogate the costs back to B's carrier, which, in turn, would subrogate them to A.
Your Allianz policy does not have liability coverage, and it looks like Hertz is supposed to be providing the liability insurance for you, but potentially they are not ultimately responsible if the police report says the truck driver didn't keep the lane properly. Either you, or Hertz (or perhaps both), will need to go after the trucker's insurance. Hertz will drag its feet on this just to try to get you to handle the problem without them, which is why you need a lawyer.
NB: the lawyer may tell you to pay up to avoid a judgment and collections against you, but still proceed to sue the trucker's insurance on your behalf to get you made whole.
posted by fedward at 1:41 PM on May 14, 2018 [3 favorites]
Long version: in a three party collision, the third car (call it C) doesn't go after the first car (A), they go after the car that actually hit them (B) even if the driver of that car was not at fault. If the driver of car B has a policy, then what tends to happen is that B's liability carrier pays out to C, then turns around and goes after A for the same amount. This process is called subrogation. If C has uninsured or underinsured coverage (UM), then C's policy might pay the damages out first (so the car can get repaired and get on the road) and then subrogate the costs back to B's carrier, which, in turn, would subrogate them to A.
Your Allianz policy does not have liability coverage, and it looks like Hertz is supposed to be providing the liability insurance for you, but potentially they are not ultimately responsible if the police report says the truck driver didn't keep the lane properly. Either you, or Hertz (or perhaps both), will need to go after the trucker's insurance. Hertz will drag its feet on this just to try to get you to handle the problem without them, which is why you need a lawyer.
NB: the lawyer may tell you to pay up to avoid a judgment and collections against you, but still proceed to sue the trucker's insurance on your behalf to get you made whole.
posted by fedward at 1:41 PM on May 14, 2018 [3 favorites]
The way this is supposed to work is called subrogation. A owes B $1, B owes C $1, and so B transfers their debt so that now A owes C $1. You're B in this situation. You're still paying the SUV driver (C)'s damages; you're just doing it with someone else's money.
Theoretically, it should be easy - you just tell the semi's insurance to pay the SUV driver - but easy isn't how the insurance industry operates. Any insurance company's default response is going to be to find a way to deny the claim. I can't tell if you've even filed a claim with the semi's insurance (A) yet, but even if you have, they're going to try to deny it. Normally, if you have liability insurance, you'd have your own insurance company fighting back so that A wouldn't bully you around, but now you're going to have to defend yourself on your own.
This is why people are telling you to get a lawyer. It will be much more efficacious for someone who knows what they're doing to defend your interests instead of having you try to go into battle against a giant insurance company and their army of lawyers by yourself. I'm not saying it will work, but it's more likely. The lawyer is also more likely to be able to pause that 20 day window that the SUV's insurance is giving you.
(On preview, what fedward said.)
Ultimately, though, that $2500 is going to have to be paid by you one way or another. After all, you're the one hit the SUV. The semi did not. It sucks, but that's part of the risk of driving. You're actually pretty lucky that you didn't lose your license, since you were driving without insurance. The damages could have been much worse as well. It probably doesn't feel like it now, but consider this a bullet mostly dodged.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:48 PM on May 14, 2018
Theoretically, it should be easy - you just tell the semi's insurance to pay the SUV driver - but easy isn't how the insurance industry operates. Any insurance company's default response is going to be to find a way to deny the claim. I can't tell if you've even filed a claim with the semi's insurance (A) yet, but even if you have, they're going to try to deny it. Normally, if you have liability insurance, you'd have your own insurance company fighting back so that A wouldn't bully you around, but now you're going to have to defend yourself on your own.
This is why people are telling you to get a lawyer. It will be much more efficacious for someone who knows what they're doing to defend your interests instead of having you try to go into battle against a giant insurance company and their army of lawyers by yourself. I'm not saying it will work, but it's more likely. The lawyer is also more likely to be able to pause that 20 day window that the SUV's insurance is giving you.
(On preview, what fedward said.)
Ultimately, though, that $2500 is going to have to be paid by you one way or another. After all, you're the one hit the SUV. The semi did not. It sucks, but that's part of the risk of driving. You're actually pretty lucky that you didn't lose your license, since you were driving without insurance. The damages could have been much worse as well. It probably doesn't feel like it now, but consider this a bullet mostly dodged.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:48 PM on May 14, 2018
Response by poster: Okay, what kind of lawyer do I need? I've talked to several PI firms and they cut me off as soon as they find out that I'm not injured. Searching "auto accident lawyers" just leads to more PI firms and DUI/other criminal defense.
posted by AFABulous at 1:59 PM on May 14, 2018
posted by AFABulous at 1:59 PM on May 14, 2018
You want an insurance dispute/insurance coverage attorney although I've never known one to be employed by a person, not an insurance company. You might try an attorney doing consumer law or general civil practice.
posted by crush at 2:39 PM on May 14, 2018
posted by crush at 2:39 PM on May 14, 2018
Consider this from a different point of view - as far as you are concerned, the truck caused YOUR accident. The SUV in the left was minding their own business and then YOU hit THEM. They had no interaction with the truck, so they may have a 'knock on effect' cause perspective. The truck hit you - truck's fault, you hit the SUV - your fault. After all, you didn't stay in your lane and have your accident with the truck all on your own like a good citizen maybe? Not saying that's right, but I can see how an insurance company could see/insist it goes that way, because they're wankers.
If the SUV never hit the truck, then I don't know how that works and maybe it's not as logical as you think it should be. Maybe there is some myopic weirdness that because there was no contact between SUV and truck, they don't care, and that's (from their perspective) your problem to recoup any costs from that - kind of like paying it forward blame? In a concertina crash where one car drives into the back of a car and shunts it into others, than I think blame goes up the same chain so maybe this is similar?
But, as mentioned, insurance is illogical and the wrong comment (especially in writing) can royally fuck you for being on the hook for stuff, so keep shut and lawyer up if it is worth the money to do so. If the $2,500 is less than the cost of the lawyer, maybe that's the answer, but maybe they're saying that just to try and weasel out of paying.
posted by Brockles at 4:30 PM on May 14, 2018 [2 favorites]
If the SUV never hit the truck, then I don't know how that works and maybe it's not as logical as you think it should be. Maybe there is some myopic weirdness that because there was no contact between SUV and truck, they don't care, and that's (from their perspective) your problem to recoup any costs from that - kind of like paying it forward blame? In a concertina crash where one car drives into the back of a car and shunts it into others, than I think blame goes up the same chain so maybe this is similar?
But, as mentioned, insurance is illogical and the wrong comment (especially in writing) can royally fuck you for being on the hook for stuff, so keep shut and lawyer up if it is worth the money to do so. If the $2,500 is less than the cost of the lawyer, maybe that's the answer, but maybe they're saying that just to try and weasel out of paying.
posted by Brockles at 4:30 PM on May 14, 2018 [2 favorites]
There's a reason PI attorneys run away from you. They usually take their fees from the settlement you receive. If you're not taking home any cash, they're not taking home any cash.
What you want, aside from the mythological private-practice insurance dispute specialist that crush mentioned, is a consumer rights attorney. Someone who is used to dealing with corporate legal teams and Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
posted by kevinbelt at 4:43 PM on May 14, 2018 [1 favorite]
What you want, aside from the mythological private-practice insurance dispute specialist that crush mentioned, is a consumer rights attorney. Someone who is used to dealing with corporate legal teams and Kafkaesque bureaucracy.
posted by kevinbelt at 4:43 PM on May 14, 2018 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by JimN2TAW at 8:04 AM on May 14, 2018 [2 favorites]