by janice12881 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 02:47 pm
by Monday morning the other drivers insurance was on the phone with us telling us we need to bring out car to a network body shop to get it fixed. We told them we would like to take it to our own shop to get it checked before we do anything. We appreciated their quick response although the car is still drivable. They seemed mad that we wanted to take it to our own guy. Why do they seem so rushed and push their car shop? don't we have the right to bring it where we want? The other thing is the rear ended accident has caused a lot of damage to the undercarriage, and they told us if they come out to adjust for us to bring it to our own guy they will only pay what is seen on site not what is under the plastic cover bumper piece. This seems shady? also they told us we only get the rental option if we bring it to "their" network body shop. any advice? Thank you!
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:56 pm Post Subject:
Janice,
How did the MRI go? Hope you got better results than you expected.
I don't know enough about the insurance to really answer your question but I can tell you that my mother was in with me in 1995 when we were rear ended, she seen it coming and gripped the granny bar and tore out her previously repaired carpal tunnel, my insurance company paid and then went after the other guys insurance, I know in the end she still ended up with a pretty healthy cash settlement, she was just released to go back to work that day, we were headed home from the doctors visit that released her. Unfortunately she could not pursue employment again in a feild where she could use her hands repetitively and had to have the surgery all over again. That was in 1995 and she has not worked since, she is just now getting into taking care of people, something she can do with out the repetitive motion. She never filed for a disability claim, but I think through time, that may be what she has to do, her wrists still bother her alot, especially in bad weather.
Hope all works out for you, I feel for you because I know it upset my mother financially and emotionally.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:35 am Post Subject:
Thank you good natured. The MRI went well, he will get his results on Thursday.. I assume earlier if its anything major is to be reported. I'm so sorry to hear about your mom, what a strange turn of events she was coming home from surgery and had to have the surgery over again.. thats horrible! You just don't realize how smoothly your life is running until there is a bump in a road... and I say bump to ours because none of us landed in the hosptial, the aches and pains are annoying especially at this time of year when so much needs to be done BUT! I know that we are very lucky to be OK. Thanks for the kind words.
Janice.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:39 am Post Subject:
Well Janice, this is what i have found, so far, and unfortunately (i think) will be moot...it appears that you may not have a claim against the other party...(if so this clears up for me, the insurance company telling you your health carrier will be next on the list when pip is exausted...)
You may be allowed to sue for non-economic damages if the amount of these damages exceeds a specified tort threshold. Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania have verbal thresholds
Appears there is a specified tort threshold in PA...rather than a monetary one.....also..Pennsylvania and Kentucky, motorists may reject the lawsuit threshold and retain the right to sue for any auto-related injury.
I'm assuming since you have pip that you may have lost your rights to sue...so it may not apply in your instance...now i just have to try and find the tort threshold..... :twisted:crap, (sorry pip gives me a headach! :roll: )...looks like penn is also a 'choice' no fault state! (and i think you might've signed away your rights to sue) if you chose this then (I think) you will have no recourse against the other party....
PA is a choice-no-fault state. Choice-no-fault is a hybrid of the pure no-fault system. Under this system, drivers have the choice of being insured under either a pure no-fault plan or a modified no-fault plan. Under the pure nofault plan, one is unable to sue negligent drivers for non-economic damages, and is immune from such suits himself/herself. Under the traditional tort (personal injury suits) rights, one can sue other drivers who have also chosen to retain their tort rights, and in return they can sue him/her. If one that has chosen the modified plan has an accident with a driver insured under the pure no-fault plan, they are both unable to sue the other party.
So I guess you need to find out if you signed your tort rights away first...if you have not i'll dig some more.......
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:28 pm Post Subject: Yikes Lori!
Thank you for the info. indeed we do have limited tort. We opt'ed to have the limited tort to keep our insurance price lower hmm not such a good idea? Right now we are more worried about getting healthy.... One of the things we looked at when signing limited tort was that we do have excellent health insurance we also have good coverage with car insurance. We have a teen driver also, so that was a big deciding factor in signing for limited tort... tuition, limited tort. $$$$ you know what I mean? Hey! they forgot to include this in the instruction manual when my son was born!
One thing I wanted to pass by you was: I understand thru a friend that if the other car is from out of state (which it was) the limited tort choice is null and void. Did you ever hear of this?
Thank you again and again for all your help!
Janice
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:43 pm Post Subject:
I understand thru a friend that if the other car is from out of state (which it was) the limited tort choice is null and void. Did you ever hear of this?
No, I haven't heard of this, (doesn't make it not so... :oops: I haven't heard of a lot of things!) I do know that all auto policys must conform to the laws of the state they drive into....meaning (as an example) if I drove across the bridge into Kansas my MO policy would change to the statutes of KS which are no-fault....while the other drivers policy must now conform to the PA rules/laws, I doubt it will null and void your chose of limited tort...but hey, it's worth checking out...I'm sure your adjuster will know these facts....I totally get you on the choice you made, were I buying that policy especially with a teen driver I would've chosen the same way,
$$$$ you know what I mean? Hey! they forgot to include this in the instruction manual when my son was born!
They left that out of my owners manual too, and the part they really should put in there is don't matter how old they get, you NEVER stop worrying about them ! :shock: mine are 29 and 26, it never ends! :lol:Thank you again and again for all your help!
My pleasure let us know how your boy is doing and any additiona info, or assistance we can provide.....and we'll all sure try to help....Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:51 pm Post Subject:
gosh Janice, nothing but bad news huh, hope this all works out. I know I had and still have full tort on all vehicles just to protect myself and my family, god knows what I would do if either of us had an accident, we are equal bread winners here. My moms live in at the time had limited tort, they have since married but at the time, they were not, him having the limited tort and living in her house hold actually came into question when it came to suing capability, thankfully, it worked out for her some how, I did not get into how they fenangled it. She was actually released to go back to work, we were on our way home from her last appointment.
Hope you get some good news on tuesday, I will keep you and your family in my thoughts. take care.
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 02:20 am Post Subject: Light reading.
Goodnatured... Not so bad, we are all still walking and alive.. which is a very good thing! Thanks for your thoughts of my family! You guys are awesome!
EXCEPTIONS
Section 1705(d) - Under the following facts, even if one elects limited tort, it does
not apply if:
1. The tortfeasor is convicted or accepts ARD for driving under the influence.
2. The tortfeasor is operating a vehicle registered in another State.
3. The tortfeasor intentionally injures the person. 4. The tortfeasor is the owner of a currently registered motor vehicle and has
not maintained financial responsibility as required.
I'm not sure how valid this is? but I just found it a little bit ago.
You see Lori, I was actually searching for that "owners manual" we spoke of earlier, and stumbled upon this.
I would also like to add, remember when they were tiny little guys and people would say "Oh how cute!" and you'd smile with a burned out look on your face because you had been chasing little ones around the entire day.... And the usual statement after was "small problems when they are small, bigger problems when they are bigger" I'd just shrug my shoulders and think to myself, there is no way I could be more worried about these kids then I am now. WELL I WAS WRONG! I worry so much MORE! Thanks for everything, let me know what you think about the quote I posted? Is it Friday yet? Have a good one!
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:37 pm Post Subject:
Just hope all is well with you and yours.
Looks like you may have some thing there, I am sure Lori will come along and explain, she is soooooo good at this stuff, I am so glad she is here.
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 01:17 pm Post Subject:
I'm certainly no attorney or expert on no-fault especially when it's a choice state...but i'd say you have something with number 2
The tortfeasor is operating a vehicle registered in another State
on the surface anyway....did you get this from your policy? Ask your adjuster and if this is the case, I would definately pursue an injury claim against the other driver on all of you...if your boy turns out to have a slipped disc, might be a good idea to at least have a 'free consultation' with an attorney yourself..i rarely recommend that...but as one who suffers with this (discs) and other back/neck problems....think it would be a good idea at least for your boys claim..........please let us know about this exclusion...would be good to know for any others that happen along...
You know a good friend of mines daddy said something to me when our daughter was about two years old and i've never forgot it...i was chasing after her, and she was just flat wearing me out...and he said to me, ''When they are little they step on your toes, but when they grow up they step on your heart'' truer words were never spoken...there is just always something to be scared/worried about........and i know daddy's worry too, but something about having that baby in your belly all that time, you just never stop....:)
let us know please about the exclusion....wish i knew more about it for you...but looks like we will be learning together on this one!
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 01:45 pm Post Subject: Silly me!
Lori,
Silly me! I found that quote online, didn't think of looking over my policy
DUH! See! thats why you are such a helpful gift!
Indeed I checked out my policy and it reads word for word what I posted about the exclusion.
We find out my sons results today, WE really are hoping for the best!
I wonder why my insurance company never mentioned anything about that? We filed medical claims with our insurance seems weird they would not tell us that the limited tort rule is out the window in this case? Oh well!
Just more paperwork I guess.
Loved your little saying from the friends dad... step on toes.. step on your heart.. SO VERY TRUE! I hope you don't mind I will be using that expression? Have a fantastic day!
Add your comment