“Dillholes” are a technique in fish cooking, particularly salmon. One uses a special tool bought from specialty gourmet cookware stores such as Williams and Sonoma, called a “dillholer.”
With the dillholer, which is like a melon baller only a little smaller, you scoop out bits of raw salmon flesh. These are then filled with fresh dill that has been whirred into a paste with a little olive oil.
These little holes into which you add the oil-and-herb mixture are “dillholes.” 
There are laws against what the mother is doing. Even if she isn’t violating the rules regarding insurable interest on a technicality, she’s still being a shitbag for violating the spirit of the rule.
This doesn’t seem quite right somehow -
the mother has benefitted from Son’s accident - an accident where he wasn’t at fault…
that seems a little opportunistic and bullying, although it’s not the worst possible outcome I guess.
I’m glad things worked out somewhat reasonably well, but I still don’t see why he’s being judged like this. Did you leave anything out about the son that is particularly relevant? The only choice of his that seems salient is him leaving it up his mom to pay his car insurance, but that’s so boringly typical for teens working low-paying Mc jobs that this isn’t giving me the vapors. Does he do drugs? Is he a high school drop out? Is he not aspiring to do more with his life than work fast food?
That she’s paying his insurance on this car too suggests the mom never really had a problem doing it in the first place, and it really seals it for me that “teaching him a lesson” was never her priority but rather it was making sure she could get a nicer car than him. If I was her son, I would take a lesson from this. He should not trust his mother when it comes to this stuff.
Actually, that’s the choice I’m referring to. In his situation, I’d be “thanks but no thanks” on the insurance front. And I’m hoping she actually signed the car over to him, rather than just said “here, this is yours now.”
Oh okay, I thought “choices” went a lot more deeper and darker than that.
After what just happened I would be “thanks but no thanks too”, but only because of distrust.
The kid having a nicer car than Mom seemed to be the problem, from Mom’s perspective, all along. I can’t imagine how furious Ex, Grandma, and Son are at Mom :eek:
My Mom would always say something to the effect of “remember this when you’re picking my nursing home” when she helped us out as young adults.
OK, think of it this way: What would have happened if Mom hadn’t bought the insurance? In that case, it would be nobody’s money, because there wouldn’t be any insurance. The only reason that money is even in the family at all is because of her decisions and her expenditures. So, again, where does anyone else have any claim on the money?
No true, if the accident was the other driver’s fault. Presumably someone would have stepped up to pay the insurance. Either the son, the ex, the MIL, or some combination of them.
No, the other driver was at fault so there ought to be money from them. The way insurance claims if you have collision insurance go:
(1) Other driver owes you money for wrecking your car
(2) You sign your claim against the other driver over to insurance company
(3) Insurance company pays you money
(4) Insurance company goes after the other driver
Without collision insurance it’s up to you to collect from the other party. When I was rear ended, I got in contact with the other insurance company, they assessed the damages, and cut me a check.
Because the son is the only one who is legally allowed to have a claim to the money. It’s not the mother’s car, so she’s not allowed to insure it on her own behalf.
This doesn’t make sense.
If the kid is not at fault for the accident, the payout is from the at-fault driver’s liability coverage, not mom’s collision coverage.
If you have collision coverage you can file a claim with your insurance provider. They cut you a check and then the insurance company will go after the at fault party for compensation.
Right, but do you not end up getting the money eventually anyway? I guess I’ve never had to deal with it…
Either way, if the kid’s not at fault for the accident, why is he being punished for it? Seems like Mom is using this as an opportunity to re-fight the battle she already lost. I mean, I get that she’s probably still pissed about it. I would be. But if it’s not the kid’s fault, it’s not the kid’s fault. He’s already lost the car.
(Kid needs to be paying for his own insurance though.)
It depends on the other party. If they have insurance and they’ve accepted fault then the process is pretty painless. They will have deals with body shops where you can go get your car fixed and they will pay for it. Or they’ll send out an adjustor and will cut you a check on the spot, if you want. In a lot of cases, if you have a POS it makes sense to just take the cash. When I was rear ended, I got a check for $2400 on a car I paid $4100 for.
If they don’t have insurance, well you’re basically SOL. Your only real options are to take them to court or accept what you can negotiate.
Update: Now it’s been really, really resolved - nephew has totaled his mom’s old Focus, though he wasn’t hurt. Since it had just liability on it and apparently this was his fault (it was a single car accident), he’s now on the bus. Two cars totaled in the same year, means everyone - mom, dad, grandma - has pretty much said “I’m out, kid - you’re on your own.”
That’s what I expected would happen.
At least everyone is on the same page now, except maybe your nephew.
I’m sorry about the two cars, and the bus seems to be the place for your nephew.
Some kids need drastic consequences to learn new lessons.
Sure would be nice if some kids actually learned their lessons and made the right choices. What a wonderful world that would be.