Jump to content

William Light

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


William Light last won the day on April 23 2017

William Light had the most liked content!


About William Light

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/28/1963

Recent Profile Visitors

1,590 profile views
  1. Not sure exactly what your question is. First, your post indicates you are in PA, so any answer I give could be inaccurate based upon the fact that I am not licensed to practice law in PA. Whether you were going straight or making a left turn, you had the right of way, per the witness, whose statements will be more heavily weighted than your own, or the statements of driver/passengers in the other car. The duty to yield on left turns means that you don't have the right of way; that another vehicle is entitled to pass through the intersection before you. That clearly doesn't apply to someone who has a red light while you have a green light. While not really clear, your post suggest that the other driver was coming from your left or right, and not from head on. You are entitled to rely on the good conduct of other drivers on the road, so that should minimize your comparative fault. However, just because you have the right of way, doesn't entitle you to pull in front of cross traffic. A prudent driver still looks left and right before entering the intersection, particularly immediately after a light change. As a result, you may have some comparative fault. Perhaps more importantly, if you were delivering pizza at the time of the collision, your own insurance will probably exclude this collision from coverage. Your employer's general liability or automobile liability insurance may extend to protect you from claims of the occupants of the other vehicle, and may provide collision coverage to get your own vehicle repaired. This would be much easier than attempting to go through the insurer of the other driver. In the absence of insurance coverage, your employer might be obligated to compensate you for property damages you incurred pursuing business on his behalf. Consult with PA attorneys about that. Further, since you were in the course and scope of employment, any injury you sustained would be covered by workers compensation. If you were hurt, you should contact a PA workers compensation attorney to discuss your potential claims. Finally, if your own insurance doesn't apply, and your employer is also uninsured or his insurance doesn't apply to you, then you must pursue the other driver/owner. You can recover up to $12k in Small Claims in Pennsylvania. Consult with a PA attorney about what evidence is admissible, but bring your witness, your photographs, and your estimates/receipts for repair and rental car during the period of disrepair. If your car is totaled, bring evidence of its fair market value pre-collision. You might be able to use kbb.com, edmunds.com, autotrader.com, craigslist.com, etc.
  2. Just submit the claim to your insurer, either through UM (ghost vehicles are always considered uninsured) or collision, whichever is less expensive. There is no hope of solving the crime with a private investigator.
  3. The insurer has the right to accept liability in a disputed claim for business reasons. In other words, it may accept that you are not at fault, but agree to pay the other party to "go away." That is ordinarily within its discretion. If you were paid in full by the other party's insurance for your property damage, then the insurer has already accepted 100% liability. That admission would not be binding upon the other driver, though. If the other driver has made an injury claim, or a property damage claim, Allstate could usually accept 10% liability on your behalf in order to resolve claims against you within policy limits. You could, as noted by others, file a complaint with your Insurance Commissioner. You could also potentially sue Allstate for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in that it accepted liability for your collision for the purpose of benefiting itself if the increase in premiums charged to you will be more than the 10% property damage it pays out. Frankly that seems like a long shot. Since your property damage claim has already been resolved, your option to sue the other party to determine fault is limited to pursuing a bodily injury claim. Depending on the amount of medical expenses that have been billed (not just co-pays and deductibles), if any, you might be able to pursue that in Small Claims. You could then use the fault determination to demand that Allstate remove the at fault collision from your record so that you can seek insurance without paying inflated rates.
  4. If your son is driving as part of his employment, that could be construed as commercial driving, and would likely be excluded by his policy, and by his employer's personal auto policy. Speak to your agent. Being added as an insured, to a policy that actually provides coverage, is not necessary. Typically, the policy that "specifically describes" (e.g., the declarations page identifies the car/vin #) the automobile in question is conclusively presumed to be the primary policy. If your son is operating the employer's car, the insurance policy of the owner will be the primary policy. Your son doesn't need to be added to it. He should, however, confirm through the owner's insurance agent that the policy will actually cover him if there is a collision while driving for employment. If your son is hurt while driving or engaged in any other aspect of his employment, the employer's homeowner's policy will likely have a workers compensation provision that will apply. His personal medical insurance will likely have an exclusion for medical care incurred as a result of injury in the course of employment.
  5. He will have to reimburse his workers compensation carrier for the cots of medical care and other benefits from any personal injury recovery. He may not end up with any additional money from pursuing a PI claim. Discuss with a knowledgeable PI attorney in your jurisdiction.
  6. If you were in California, you should have gotten a rental car to get to work and then recovered the rental expense as part of your property damage claim. Loss of income is a unit of damage that pertains to personal injury, which you don't have. You can still submit a loss of use claim, even without rental car receipts. You still lost the use of your car. It is measured by the reasonable daily rental value of your car during the reasonable period of repair.
  7. Sounds like you have a basis to argue that the other driver was negligent in failing to warn of his disabled vehicle. I did not find an Illinois statute requiring drivers to illuminate the hazards if their car becomes disabled, but I am not an Illinois attorney, so check with a local attorney. There is a statute, which doesn't apply, that requires oncoming vehicles to move over a lane, or greatly reduce speed if they come upon a disabled vehicle with its hazard lights illuminated. (Section 11-907.5 of the Illinois Vehicle Code). In Illinois, you can sue for up to $10k in Small Claims. Bring photos of the roadway as you approach the collision site, photos of the damage to your car, and estimates/receipts for repair and rental car. If you are injured, get medical treatment and consult with a local PI attorney.
  8. If the damage is $730, and they are attributing 30% to you, this fight is over $219. Move on. But if you insist, sue him in Small Claims court for the full value of your damages. Bear the risk that the Small Claims judge will assess each of you at 50% fault. Bring your photos, estimates for repair, and witness, and prove your case.
  9. So, it is meaningful, since "every state" likely has a similar law, which was part of the qualification of the original response ("If the state where this collision occurred has a similar statute, and the disabled vehicle did not have its hazards illuminated, your friends would have a claim for negligence per se.")
  10. It might be correct, maybe not. If your friends disagree, they can always sue the other driver and owner of the car in Small Claims for their property damage. California, at least, has a statute requiring that drivers illuminate their hazard lights if their vehicle becomes disabled. (Vehicle Code section 25251) https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2007/veh/25250-25282.html If the state where this collision occurred has a similar statute, and the disabled vehicle did not have its hazards illuminated, your friends would have a claim for negligence per se. Otherwise, it would be a claim for negligence in which they would argue that he should have illuminated the hazard lights. The ultimate finding by the Judge isn't necessarily all or nothing. S/He might believe that each party had some percentage of fault. That is a determination of the trier of fact. Or, they can simply tender the claim to their own collision insurer to get their car repaired.
  11. Let your insurance company handle it. It will appoint an attorney to defend you and pay any sums for which you are liable, up to your policy limit. You have no right to decide whether your insurer settles or to goes to trial, except you want to let your insurer know that it has a duty to attempt to resolve your case within policy limits and that failure to do so exposes it to liability in excess of the policy limit. Otherwise, the decision to settle or not is within the total discretion of the insurer. Your role is to cooperate with the insurer. If there is excess exposure, your choice is either to contribute to a settlement above policy limits, or to file bankruptcy. You need to learn more about the claimed injuries and potential value of the case before considering either of those options.
  12. This is not really a legal question, except with respect to the warranty. I have extreme doubts about the dealer's representations about voiding the warranty. The warranty is usually drivetrain. Not sure how a dealer would justify voiding a warranty on the engine, transmission, suspension because you replaced your windshield. If you use OEM glass, the dealer won't even know that the glass was replaced. However, as pg1067 says, read the warranty. It will, or should, describe the circumstances in which it becomes voided.
  13. You can't make people agree with you. If you think you can prove that he ran a red light, then you can have a trial and let a jury decide your damages, or just go to Small Claims.
  14. The adjusters would probably agree that each person is 50% at fault. Of course, depending on facts, that result can change dramatically.
  15. Again, it depends on whether the driver put the car owner in a worse position - something we don't know. You may be 100% correct. I would still want to review the police report.
  • Create New...