Thanks, Katzenjammer. Thanks everyone for your responses.
I know insurance does NOT pay if there is a serious breach of the law, like DUI. A fellow where I worked used to walk to work for a year because he stopped at a small town bar, then cleverly ran off the road and hit a tree, totalling his truck… in front of the local police station! (Fortunately the tree was OK).
His wife told him, screw you, I’m not driving you, you can walk. His insurance company refused to pay because he was DUI. he spent the next 3 years making payments on an expensive truck that was written off.
(Similarly, IIRC- they won’t pay if you are involved in an acident during your bank robbery getaway, or such serious legal violations).
The difference, as Katzenjammer alludes to, is whether driving suspended is considered a serious enough crime to warrant the same treatment. I suppose we must here make the distinction between “suspended” and “expired”. The former is a specific order, usually due to some very poor driving habits or DUI - you are flouting a court ruling by driving. The latter is an “oops, I forgot my renewal date was last month”.
Regardless, his license status has no bearing on apportioning blame; the only “maybe”, as others mentined, might be DUI on anybody’s part which would impair ability to maneuver and stop in reasonable time.
Whether Lisa’s company can weasel out of paying for Isaac’s damage (assuming it’s not “no-fault” insurance in that state- do they even have that in the USA?)… that depends, but I doubt it - as others point out, his license status is totally irrelevant to assigning blame. If Lisa is uninsured or underinsured, it’s up to Isaac’s company to pay for things with his car and then chase Lisa for the money - unless they have the weasel clause for driving suspended. Then he sues Lisa/her insurance personally.
Isaac should not admit any fault because he didn’t do anything wrong. Isaac was rear-ended. The person who hit him should pay.
Isaac should make a claim against the person’s insurance company (his own insurance company likely won’t cover him because he’s unlicensed, but check). The insurance company will make a big deal about the fact Isaac did not have a valid license. So what. That doesn’t make Isaac negligent.
Depending on how close Issac was to the car in front of him, he may still be partly at fault.
Car in front took no damage. This part isn’t in anyway contested. Irresponsible Isaac’s only crime is driving with a suspended license. He didn’t cause the accident in any way and none of the parties are even suggesting otherwise.
I’m feeling a bit encouraged for him. I haven’t spoken to him today, but I know he is looking into matters and he seemed slightly comforted when I texted him the responses to this thread yesterday. I hope it will work out for him. He is a good friend.
Isaac was stopped. Then a rear-end hit pushed him into the front car. I don’t recall anything in my driver training material or long experience that suggests that you are at fault if you stop too close to the car in front and get pushed into it. Traffic in most large cities is pretty close together waiting for lights, for example. If he was still moving but might have stopped in time - well, that’s one of those fun ones for the lawyers to argue.
From what I’ve heard, “suspended” usually means a court has ordered you not to drive. (Not just an administrative thing at DMV). Normally, when police issue a ticket they do so based on personally witnessing a violation, or attending an accident. I suppose they might give a citation for driving while suspended based on statements of those involved in the accident, but that would suggest someone (Lisa’s insurance?) would call the cops for their own warm and fuzzy reasons.
That sounds correct, I missed the fact that he was stopped at a light.
Even though there was no damage to car in front, driver in front can claim injuries (whiplash anyone?).
An example of this was in my licensing course. The lawyer for the rear-ended car in front with no damage stated his client had whiplash. The guy in the middle said he stopped in time and the guy behind rear-ended him into the car in front.
The lawyer stated that car in middle who was stopped fully and had not impacted car in front until rear-ended himself was “not in control of his vehicle” - and won the case so that middle car shared responsibility with paying along with the final car in the accident.
So there ya go… it’s always down to the lawyers.
I am glad your friend seems to be encouraged. With no injuries (that anyone has reported yet) things really are on the bright side.
I think he might have been better off if the police were called.
When I was the middle car in a pileup, the responding police officers told me (and the other drivers who got jammed into the cars in front of them) that as long as we were stopped before the final car smushed us together, we were fine - it was the last car’s fault for ALL the collisions. The officer said that if any of us were still moving at the time, that we’d be partly at fault for following too closely for conditions.
Apparently that is a condition of the law in SC - if you are moving, you’re under the jurisdiction of the law that states that whoever does the immediate rear-ending is automatically at fault, regardless of circumstance. If you’re already stopped however, then that law doesn’t apply. (For which I and about 3 other drivers were very grateful for during that particular accident.)
If Leadfoot Lisa already admitted fault to the insurance company, and there was no police presence at all, then I don’t know that there’s really going to be any concern that Isaac is under a suspended license. I would urge him to get that taken care of pronto, because his own insurance company is probably going to be looking very carefully at him in the near future for rate increases, and he doesn’t want to be found under suspension when they start checking.
I’m still asking - “suspended” as in the court ordered him not to drive? Or was it a case of expired license or something like that? To me, the former is a pretty serious offense and the police may want to pursue it. Driving without a license (court suspension is over but did not renew, for example) is somewhere in between.
I have trouble understanding Katzenjammer’s example except to conclude the front guy had a fancy fast-talking lawyer.
My wife once rear-ended someone who turned in front of her without looking; it took some argumentative talking to ensure the police did not ticket her. A policeman we discussed the case with said something similar happened to him (off duty), a car turned onto the road in front of himacross 2 lanes of traffic and then jammed on the brakes to make a left turn. The guy was smart enough to claim, “no, I was stopped and waiting to turn, you rear-ended me”. Without witnesses, even the cop got the blame from his insurance company.
Without good evidence, the rear-ending party is assumed to be at fault. Whether it’s a licensed or unliensed driver, or a parked car, or a broken-down car with blinkers on or a slowtard on a bicycle - it’s your responsibility to stop before you rear-end it.
I was under the impression that violation of a statute is only per se negligence when the victim is harmed by a violation of the act by the tortfeasor that the statute was designed to protect against.
In this case, the victim is the person who was violating the law, so I can’t see how contributory negligence would come into play here. IOW, the law regarding suspended licenses is in place to punish drivers who violate other regulations. It is not in place to protect other drivers who rear end people with suspended licenses.
I work in auto liability claims and deal almost daily with the issues at hand. Several misconceptions, at least in regard to how the Big Four (State Farm, Allstate, GEICO and Progressive) - as well as nearly every other insurance co I deal with in the course of my job - operate here.
From a legal liability perspective, it matters not the licensing status of ANYONE involved in the loss. Having or not having a license is not one of the four elements of legal liability. From a claims perspective, if the loss played out as posited by OP, Lisa is legally liable for Isaac’s damages, as well as the car Isaac was pushed into.
From an underwriting perspective, Insurco (fake name) will like to know that their insured Isaac is driving unlicensed, because that certainly will affect what risk pool he is placed in. Some states allow Insurco to cause cancel a policy if any member of the insured’s resident relatives has a suspended or revoked license. New Hampshire, by statute, requires removal of all first party medical (and any uninsured motorist bodily injury) coverage from the policy if the driver is a resident relative of the named insured. NH also requires dropping the third party liability coverages to state mandatory minimums in the same scenario.
I handled a claim where our insured, in fleeing cops after robbing a bank, rear ended the claimant. We ended up paying the claimant’s property damage, but disclaimed coverage to the insured for his own vehicle. We pay all the time in DUI claims - again its an underwriting issue, and Dan Drunkard may be nonrenewed, but liability is clear and our policies (and no other mainstream company’s policy either) do not have exclusions for DUI.
I can’t imagine why you would have them or why other posters have been denied payment for DUI accidents. Isn’t that what auto insurance is supposed to do? Protect me financially when I make a negligent decision that causes property damage or bodily injury?
The only exception is for intentional acts like deliberately ramming someone, but recklessness, gross negligence, and negligence should all certainly be covered.