Total Comments: 31
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 05:54 pm Post Subject:
Based on what you posted I don't see why 75% liability would be against your fiance but perhaps I'm not understanding correctly what happened. Also, while I don't know NJ laws very well, I don't see why liability would allow a deductible to be waived... unless it's because you should actually be subject to a deductible (under collision coverage) and for some reason your carrier agrees to waive it if your fault is less then 75% (but I don't think that makes sense). But you asked the following:
Shouldn't a person without insurance be more at fault if they were not supposed to legally be on the road?Nope... them not having insurance does not change fault in the accident and it's fault in the accident that is the only issue. They should be cited for not having insurance and those penelties address their lack of insurance. Also, your carrier should still pursue any legal means of recovery directly against that party even if they did not have insurance (I say it that way as I don't know what the negligence laws are in NJ, i.e. if more then 50% liability against your fiance bares you from recovering anything from the other party).
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 07:57 pm Post Subject:
Based on what you posted I don't see why 75% liability would be against your fiance but perhaps I'm not understanding correctly what happened.The way I take it he made a left hand turn on a SOLID green other driver was going straight, he did not yield to thru/on coming traffic...You always have to yield when turning left on a SOLID green (no green arrow)....I'm frankly surprised your fiance didn't get more than 75% If I were handling the claim he'd have got 100%....
If it were 50% or less, we could get coverage without the deductible.I don't get that one either :? How is that possible Pitsy? What coverage could they have paid you under to repair your vehicle with NO deductible? Please explain that to us....I'll do some checking on NJ insurance laws...but never heard of that...
I know in general he would be at fault, but the other car had no insurance, so in the state of New Jersey, should not have been on the roadHe's still at fault, I do understand your frustration, and if I were the boss of the world your finace would still be at fault but the owner and drivers of uninsured vehicles would be barred from recovery, however thier innocent passengers should be able to collect...were there any passengers in this accident? Is the other guy claiming an injury as well as vehicle damage?
Unfortunately, negligence, and liability have nothing to do with whether or not a person is responsible and insured...You will have to pay the deductible and more than likely bare a rate increase for this accident.
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 08:49 pm Post Subject:
Well from what I've read on the NJ DOI page, (and let me tell you NJ has some of the most complicated ins. regulations I've ever seen! Glad I'm not an adjuster in the garden state! wow!) sounds like you all cannot collect from the uninsured driver at all if you are one percent MORE at fault than the other guy you are barred from recovery (we call this the 51 or 49% rule alot)....he can collect his 75% but you cannot collect from him at all..Also it looks like if you file a UMPD claim that you would only be eligible to collect 25% of your damages...(the amount the other uninsured guy was negligent) subject to the deductible of course.. :roll: which is 500 looks like standard...
some great news I did find though was this:
Sunday, 07 March 2004
A state law was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which bars the right of an uninsured motorist to sue for noneconomic damages resulting from an injury from an automobile accident. A state law was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which bars the right of an uninsured motorist to sue for noneconomic damages resulting from an injury from an automobile accident.
“The law is fair because it allows an injured person to receive economic damages-for car repairs and hospital bills-even if that person is uninsured. But these uninsured drivers don't deserve anything extra.”meaning they can collect on their economic losses...sorry
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:14 pm Post Subject:
meaning they can collect on their economic lossesThat is still the typical "No pay, no play" rule as it is always the case that it only bars non-economic claims.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 03:35 am Post Subject:
If the driver is at fault, the damage for his or her car would be paid for by the collision coverage. This is where the deductible comes in to play. If the other party was at fault their liability insurance should pay. In this instance the deductible isn't an issue.
The deductible should only affect the money paid to cover the car driven by the person at fault. This should not affect the money that needs to be paid to the other party.
Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:29 am Post Subject:
If the driver is at fault, the damage for his or her car would be paid for by the collision coverage. This is where the deductible comes in to play. If the other party was at fault their liability insurance should pay. In this instance the deductible isn't an issue.We understand that Alston but that isn't what she said, she said
If it were 50% or less, we could get coverage without the deductibleAnd since she knows the other party is uninsured, can't be thinking there is a PD claim...that's the confusion.
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:26 am Post Subject:
The truth is in NJ the uninsured motorist is 100% at fault. He sould not have been on the road thus the accident would have never occured. NJ is a No-Pay / No-Play state. He can still attempt to file in small clams court but at the cost of losing his license and paying high fines that he can't associate towards you. It's basiclly ends up as a wash.
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 01:16 am Post Subject:
Congrats for digging up a thread thats 3 years old. :roll:
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 02:01 am Post Subject: insurance
I don't think the thread was 3 years old..I think it was from September of last year. "Better than LORI?" ..no, I disagree with that one. Ya know,....i REALLY think if someone CHOOSES to drive without car insurance, they should be 100% 'at fault' when they get into an accident.
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 02:10 am Post Subject:
.i REALLY think if someone CHOOSES to drive without car insurance, they should be 100% 'at fault' when they get into an accident.So, we have a single mother of 4 who just got laid off and she can't afford to pay her insurance until she gets a job. But she needs to drive to find a job. It's wrong... but its life. I'm drunk... just as bad... and I run a red light and hit her. What you're saying is that she should have to pay for my loss? Seems fair to you?
As you can see, the point I'm making is that driving w/o insurance is not related to who is at fault, nor should it change this. The two things are mutually exclusive. A person who drives w/o insurance should be cited and have to pay the price... but that price should have nothing to do with liability in the accident.