Accident with other driver who was DUI

by frankbooth2011 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 08:39 pm

Hi Folks-

I'm new here - insurance consumer, former IT manager at a large reinsuror until I was disabled in a motorcycle accident in 2005.

Last Thursday I was stopped at a red signal waiting to make a left turn. The light turned green, I looked and proceeded - and then my front-end was swiped HARD by a driver who ran the red light approaching from my left. His vehicle rolled and then he emerged - intoxicated. Local PD responded and 1) assigned him fault for failure to obey traffic controls (the red light) and 2) arrested him for DUI. Looks like about $4,000 in damage to my car. His looks totaled.

Knowing how these things can go, I contacted a lawyer and engaged him to help us navigate the equation - we had some severe sprain/strain injuries,a bunch of neck pain, and mid-and-lower back pain, and the force of the collision has aggravated my existing disability considerably.

What is the likelihood that this dude will beat the DUI somehow, and/or that MY insurer will try to allocate fault to me, as opposed to putting the blame squarely on HIS shoulders, where it belongs?


Thanks much for your review and feedback. We're in Georgia, by the way.

Peace,
FB

Total Comments: 2

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:50 pm Post Subject:

What is the likelihood that this dude will beat the DUI somehow, and/or that MY insurer will try to allocate fault to me, as opposed to putting the blame squarely on HIS shoulders, where it belongs?



Why would your insured do this... what incentive would they have to simply pay out money they do not owe?

Even if he beats the DUI charge, 1) it does not mean he was not DUI... depends on how he "beats" it and 2) this still does not get past his charge of running the red light.

Lastly... you are now paying your attorney 1/3 of your injury settlement. Why would you not ask these question of the person you are paying money to to address your concerns? Again.. _you_ are paying your attorney 1/3 of your settlement.

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:55 am Post Subject:

Knowing how these things can go, I contacted a lawyer and engaged him to help us


That was your first mistake. Evidently, you really don't know "how these things go" because you next ask the question to which tcope responded above. My response is similar.

Insurers do not act with utter disregard for the events. They can't. Do they sometimes incorrectly deny claims? Of course, it happens.

What happens in criminal court is mostly immaterial to your situation. You are the victim of a TORT not a crime. The only thing about the criminal trial that concerns you is the verdict as it applies to a civil action. If found guilty, whatever damages you can prove in a civil trial must be awarded to you -- the guilty verdict or plea is admissible as evidence of liability. What's more likely is that the individual pleads NO CONTEST, which simply means that you have to prove the facts of the collision first, and then you will be awarded damages.

But even being found NOT GUILTY of a DUI offense has no bearing on responsibility for a TORT action (recall how OJ Simpson was not guilty of murder in criminal court, yet held responsible for the deaths of two persons in a civil trial -- same evidence, different jury). He still collided with you and most likely due to failure to stop -- drunk or not. If you can prove that to a jury, you win.

Why are you concerned about YOUR insurance company? They have no responsibility to you in this. It's not up to your insurance company to determine the other party's liability to you -- that's his insurance company's responsibility to him. Your claim is against the other party (and through him to HIS insurance company).

You are free to use your own collision coverage to pay for your damages, minus the deductible, and your insurance company has the right to subrogate that claim with the other insurance company. Your insurance company will pay for your damages without question, because they have made that promise to you in your contract, and you agreed to share in the expense by paying the deductible amount of the loss first -- but if the collision was not your fault, your insurance company should not even be involved at this point, except to say that it may make getting your repairs done more quickly. The other insurance company should simply accept liability and pay your claim, regardless of any criminal charges pending.

An attorney won't make much of a difference at this point. You only need an attorney when you and the responsible party (and their insurer) cannot come to terms. You haven't been seriously injured, so what is the attorney going to recover? He takes your case for 30% to 40% of your collision damage -- that's free money. Now how do you make the repairs with only 60%-70% of what you need? That's a waste of money.

At this point, you would be better off paying the attorney $200-$300 for his time and "disengaging" him. It will save you $1000 to $1500.

If you later sue the other driver, and win, if your insurance company has already subrogated the claim, there is nothing for you to recover, except perhaps your deductible, other than "general damages" -- your claim for specific damages (collision damage) cannot be paid to you twice. If your insurance company has not subrogated the claim, then they will recover from you what you recover from the other party.

And since your attorney's share comes off the top before any payments to you, you could lose all or most of the award to your insurance company . . . all because you don't know how these things go, and you've gone and done the wrong thing to begin with.

I don't suppose the attorney shared any of this with you, did he?

Live and learn.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.