by Guest » Wed Jun 25, 2014 06:40 am
Hello . I just got a good deal on a car becouse i bought it from a family member..Then i gave the keys to my 19 year old cousin to pick up his brother from school becouse i was parked last..He hit a guy was at foult and totald my car. I still owe 5 300 for loan and have no car .. I have made 3 payment since accident and plan to pay the 300 & STILL have to buy new car..no full colision could not afford it at the time have 2 babys& million other things incase ur wondering y i didnt have colision.. So i think me paying total of 800 since the car was total and 2.000 since i bought it and buying a new car is my puunishemt for giving the keys instead of moving the car and him paying off the reast of the loan off wich is 5.000 is a fair deal & his parent r paying for it not him....I think this is fair they DONTanyone agree or disagree with me please let me know to get second opinion.. its been 2 months i been using my mothers car to wrk n back becouse we cant figure out whats fair for who to pay .???????????
Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 08:42 am Post Subject:
You have three "problems" besides no car.
First, you signed a loan contract that obligates you to pay the full amount owed, including interest. Your loan contract almost certainly had a provision that required collision coverage until the loan was extinguished. Regardless of the reasons why you believe you could not afford collision coverage (all of which are understood), you breached the contract, and the lender has the right to enforce any "acceleration" clause in the contract and attempt to collect the full unpaid balance NOW.
If you fail to pay, you will most likely be sued, and you have no defense -- not your two babies or the "million other things" that apparently cost money, too. The judgment against you can be enforced until you fully satisfy the debt or make a compromise in lieu of full restitution. If you work, they can garnish your wages with a court order. If you own personal property of significant value, they can attack that with a court order. That's problem #1.
Problem #2 is that the person who caused the damage to your vehicle -- your cousin -- owes you the full value of the vehicle (which could be less than what you owe the lender). Is he not insured as a licensed driver -- either under his own policy or his parents, if he still lives at home? If he is, you file a claim against the auto insurance policy that covers him. If not, you sue him in small claims court, or you confer with the lender and assign your right to collect from your cousin to the lender and let them sue him. They have more money than you and may be willing to do that. NOTE: If you choose to do this, you MUST get that agreement (sometimes called a "tender of rights") and a RELEASE OF LIABILITY from the lender IN WRITING -- NO VERBAL ASSURANCES.
we cant figure out whats fair for who to pay
You and your cousin are BOTH responsible to the other person with whom he collided. If you at least have property damage liability coverage, then your insurance will pay up to the policy limit to indemnify the other person for their loss. If the damage to the other person's property is more than your coverage limit, you will also owe the difference to that person -- this is Problem #3.If your cousin has auto insurance, then his coverage will be available to pay for damage to the other vehicle and yours, up to the limit of liability, which could mean that the other party -- who gets paid first -- could exhaust the limits and still leave you with nothing -- which is the same as Problem 1 and 2.
So you need to find out what insurance your cousin has, and file a claim against that policy. You need to inform your insurance company of the collision and let them figure out how they are going to pay those damages. They can go after your cousin for his negligence and to be reimbursed for what they pay to indemnify you.
All-in-all, I think you are on the real losing end of all this. And the real answer is not one that you are going to like, but the truth is often inconvenient. This is not a personal "attack" on you, but simply statements of general truth that apply to everyone, including me.
(1) When you obtain a driver license, you agree to maintain financial responsibility for your driving and the vehicles you own, and anyone who you voluntarily allow to drive your vehicle.
(2) When you borrow money to pay for something you cannot afford in cash at the moment, you are obligated to repay that debt.
(3) If you cannot fully afford the cost of either (1) or (2) or both, then you have no business owning a vehicle. There are plenty of alternatives. Buses, bicycles, roller skates and skateboards, to name a few, as well as other people's cars (with the other people driving them), not to mention your good old feet.
We hear excuses like, I live out in the country and it's too far to walk or ride a bike. Fine, move closer to the services you need. Life is often inconvenient, but it's you who must conform your circumstances to the requirements of the world, not the other way around.
I know what it's like to have little income and drive without insurance -- that was more than 30 years ago (including most of the time when I was first licensed as a Life Agent from 1980 to 1983, and driving on average 1,000 miles per week) -- and I knew what the risks and the consequences could be, so (1) I never let anyone else drive my vehicle, and (2) I was lucky enough to never be involved in a collision that was my fault.
I was hit from behind once in 1983, and the other party was a truck driver in a company truck, and the company paid me in cash to avoid a claim against their commercial auto policy. That was fine with me (in fact, it was my suggestion). It was also long before there were any consequences in CA such as loss of driving privilege or fines for not having insurance. No one reported the damage to the DMV.
Now, I've been continuously insured since 1984. Not with the same company all this time. But insured (with the same company now for about the last 6-7 years). And for at least the past 25-28 years, I've carried very high limits of liability because it's the right thing to do in CA and most other places in the world.
Add your comment