Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Having problems with the other party

Recommended Posts

I am in California.

I was involved in a traffic accident yesterday. I was at a red light, and had been stopped for at least a minute. The light turned green and I began to go, but the vehicle behind me accelerated much faster than I did And hit me very hard.

I was on my way to work out of town, and needed my car to be fixed ASAP for traveling for the upcoming holiday weekend. I filed a claim with the other party's insurance, and took my vehicle to the body shop I know and trust.

While I was there, I arranged to Get a rental car.

While at the rental car agency, the employee told me I needed to contact the other party's insurance before I could get a car.

I called and talked to a "claims adjuster" where I gave my statement of what happened. The adjuster stated that they could not authorize a rental car until they spoke with their insured party and they were not able to get a hold of them..

On top of that, the insurance adjuster stated they would only pay for a vehicle comparable to my vehicle. I drive a fully loaded 2008 Roush Mustang GT, and they said a comparable car was a Toyota Corolla. This was unacceptable to me as I am 6'2" tall, and this vehicle was too small for me to be comfortable in.

In order to get to work, I rented a vehicle out of my own pocket. I rented a larger vehicle, which was $1.75 more per day than the adjuster said they could cover.

Is there any way to get the other party's insurance to pay me for my rental car, and pay for the upgraded rental car that I could actually fit in???

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the body shop stated that this insurance company is well known to use aftermarket parts. As this is a show-car, and the vehicle has all OEM parts, I believe only New OEM parts should be used. What do I need to do to ensure this is done?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other driver's insurance company doesn't owe you directly anything. Its contract is with its insured—the other driver—and it is to that other driver that it owes its obligations. Those obligations are set by the contract that the other driver has with the insurance company.

What this means is that if you had to sue to recover your damages from the accident, you sue the other driver, not the insurance company. The company company would then provide a lawyer for the other driver and defend the case. If you won a judgment against the other driver, the insurance company would pay it for the other driver, up to the policy limits. Anything over what is in the policy the other driver pays for himself/herself.

As a result, I think you'll see that the insurance company won't pay more than the lesser of (1) what the policy says it will pay or (2) what the CA tort law says you are owed by the other driver.

In general, under tort law you are entitled to get your car returned to the same condition it was right before the accident. If that can be done with non-original equipment manufacturer (non-OEM) parts, then the other driver doesn't have to pay for OEM parts. Quite often, non-OEM parts are indeed sufficient. The new non-OEM parts are actually often better then the worn OEM parts that they are replacing. That you would prefer the OEM parts is not really a factor. All that matters is whether the parts will do the job in repairing the car. If non-OEM parts will do but you still want the OEM parts, you pay the difference.

Similarly, if the insurance company knows shops that would do the work properly for less than your preferred shop, you will likely have to eat the difference.

A similar issue will arise with the rental car. You may be entitled to a similar rental car to the car you have; but likely not the exact same vehicle. Again, it is not your preference that drives what the other driver is liable for, but what the law considers to be sufficient to make you whole.

It's quite common that the insurance company will come in with an initial offer at the low end of the range that might be reasonable for your damages. After all, if it can get a settlement for a low amount, it is doing its job of maximizing its profit for shareholders. You can argue with the insurance company about the stuff I mentioned above. You may be able to get the company to come up in the offer if you pursue it, but you may find at some point the extra cost you'll incur in pursuing it just won't be worth the extra you might squeeze out of the insurance company.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...