Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: Uninsured Motorcyclist hit by at-fault insured car
I was riding my motorcycle without insurance (long story - not so interesting) and was hit by a car. The car driver's carrier has admitted fault; however, they are claiming that I am not entitled to pursue a claim because I did not have an active insurance policy on my bike.
I live in California.
I cannot imagine that I am barred from filing a claim for personal injury because my own insurance wasn't in order.
Any advice would be appreciated. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
You cannot image someone else not being responsible for another person's injuries? Hmmm... seems we might have a double standard here.
Propersition 213:
Quote:
"Civil Code Section 3333.4 restricts owners and operators of motor vehicles injured in a motor vehicle accident from recovering non-economic losses for compensation for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other non-pecuniary damages if the injured person was not insured at the time of the accident as required by the Financial Responsibility Laws of the State of California, or if the injured person was driving under the influence and was convicted of that offense. "
I understand this as meaning you can collect for actual expenses, just not "pain and suffering". This is typically how "no pay, no play" states work.
Excellent information, tcope. OP I really don't have much to add after what tcope has mentioned. But I wud like to speak on your behalf. You can't be barred form collecting for your damages, even though your policy wasn't at place. Many factors may influence a person not to maintain a proper policy. Do you have any good suggestion for him?
-ghostrider _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
What I understand from your post is that an uninsured motorist can collect only for the physical injuries and treatment. But isn't allowed to get compensation for pain and suffering and wage loss. Am i right?? If not will you please explain it little more. Tx _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.
Propersition 213:
Quote:
"Civil Code Section 3333.4 restricts owners and operators of motor vehicles injured in a motor vehicle accident from recovering non-economic losses for compensation for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other non-pecuniary damages if the injured person was not insured at the time of the accident as required by the Financial Responsibility Laws of the State of California, or if the injured person was driving under the influence and was convicted of that offense. "
YEAH CA! Absolutely wonderful!!!! (could've taken it a bit further in my opinion)...wish all states would follow with similar legislation! If you don't see the need to protect folks from injury and property damage then why should you collect? Sorry about the accident, but if I was the boss of the world...ALL (except innocent children in the vehicles) would be barred from all recovery....I say BRAVO Californa! _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
I'm not sure about loss wages... typically they are going to be considered Special Damages (same as medical bills) and would be payable/collectible (that is, loss wages are an economical loss so I'd think the OP could collect on them).
On the surface No Pay, No Play seems like a good idea but I think there are some big pit falls in it. Another point of view in the OP's case... the OP did not pay for insurance... but should this really be directly tied to him/her not being able to be paid for the pain and suffering that _someone else_ inflicted? How about not having a valid drivers licenses? What about not having an up to date tag on the vehicle? Again, do the two things really have a direct correlation. I think No Play, No Pay might be a knee jerk reaction to a huge problem and perhaps not the best solution. Perhaps it would be better if the states enforced the no insurance laws already on the books.
I agree there are many facets to the question and as we well know the insurance laws are not enforced as they should be....however, I think that if there were laws on the books that mandated (in effect) ''sorry mack, you drive uninsured, thus exposing everyone on the road to great financial loss due to your irresponsiblity, you get zero even if the other party is at fault if you are uninsured'' (except of course for innocent minors ''trapped'' in a vehicle with irresponsible adults)...I know tcope you have handled the same types of claims that just gnaw and gnaw with the not at fault uninsured driver that screams the loudest and runs immediately from the accident scene to an attorney for their huge pain and suffering claims! It's just one of those things that has always struck me as well just sooooooooooo wrong....(just my opinion...as they won't let me be the 'boss of the world'....yet)... _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
Wouldn't it have to be third party Fred? _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
I've read it over and over and its still giving me mixed signals. Being that it appears to only restrict *non-economic* losses. So, ... I'm not sure, and that's why I ask.
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: accident
Forgive me if I seem alittle 'stupid' in this matter. But........if you ARE uninsured ( reguardless you are driving a motorcycle or a car isn't the accident AUTOMATICALLY your fault? Which, of course, you would have 'no coverage' for the injuries out upon the other people whom you had hurt.
But........if you ARE uninsured ( reguardless you are driving a motorcycle or a car isn't the accident AUTOMATICALLY your fault?
Of course not.
Your stopped a a light and I run into th back of you because I'm drunk and talking on my cell phone. Should you have to pay be for the damage I caused to my car because you don't have insurance?
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: insurance
OHHHHHHHH...I catcha!! Yep...makes sense. ok..pretty clear. It's a 'tangled web' in a way. 1) The Uninsured and the 2) DUI...boy!1 Insurance can get 'complex' at times.
I've read it over and over and its still giving me mixed signals. Being that it appears to only restrict *non-economic* losses. So, ... I'm not sure, and that's why I ask
Fred, the way I read it (non-economical asside)...if the party is uninsured that is banned from anything other than economical, then it HAS to be third party right? If you don't have insurance and therefore cannot claim against your own policy, then the other (at fault) party is the only insurance you could possibly claim against right? then it would have to be third party...or am I missing something? _________________ Have you been helped by a poster? Do you want to show your appreciation? YOU CAN !! Just simply click on the donate button and send them some coin!
It's just one of those things that has always struck me as well just sooooooooooo wrong....(just my opinion...as they won't let me be the 'boss of the world'....yet)...
