Should'nt uninsured driver automatically be more at fault?

Message

Author

	Add to del.icio.us
	Add to YahooMyWeb
	Add to Simpy
	Add to BlinkList

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:47 pm Post subject: uninsured driver

My husband was involved in an accident where he was uninsured. The police found that they could not determine who was responsible; therefore each were liable. There were no witnesses and the only person hurt did not wear a seat belt. Now my husband's being sued for medical damages and pain and suffering. The couple is claiming he was reckless yet other than being uninsured there's nothing that suggest he was reckless. The couple are in their eighties and had no seat belt. Is ity possible for him to counter sue, despite not having insurance? Are both parties liable like the police determined? Not sure if it helps, but we reside in Indiana. _________________ Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved.

lilee26

Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:30 pm Post subject:

Quote:

reside in Indiana.

Doesn't help (actually, it doesn't matter).

When someone sues another person, they have to provide a "cause of action" or the complaint will be dismissed. So these folks have chosen to characterize your husband as "reckless". So what?

It will be their responsibility to PROVE their claim. What evidence can they provide that shows your husband was operating his vehicle carelessly, recklessly, or negligently? If none, the case will be tossed. Although it does not look good that your husband was uninsured at the time, it makes no difference.

Having insurance does not mean a person is a good driver. Plenty of insured drivers drive recklessly. Not having insurance simply means that person is 100% financially at-risk for any damages he/she causes, including legal damages. But for anyone to collect, they have to prove their damages and they have to prove who was at fault.

If it even gets to trial, what would the judge or jury think about the injuries to persons who chose not to wear seatbelts? That's as least as reckless as most other persons' poor driving skills.

You ask about your husband "countersuing". What is his "cause of action" -- what damages did he incur? Or are you just asking if he should sue the old folks because they sued him?

I haven't looked at Indiana law, but most states have adopted a form of tort reform that prevents an uninsured driver from collecting even $0.01 more than his/her actual damages (property loss, medical expenses) -- NOTHING for pain and suffering.

Quote:

Are both parties liable like the police determined?

Your mistake here is that you believe the police are responsible for determining liability. They are not. The insurance companies and/or the courts have that responsibility. Courts only become involved when the parties cannot agree about the responsibility.
_________________
CA-licensed P&C Broker-Agent and Life Agent. CA Insurance Lic #0596197. Now investigating insurance company abuses, and providing litigation support and expert witness services. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers.

MaxHerr

Moderator