I was rear-ended on the freeway last March. The impact forced me into the car ahead of me. I was stopped with the rest of the traffic with my foot on the brake and was hit from behind by an inattentive driver. She had no insurance.
Today I got a letter from the guy I was pushed into. He says that my insurance company “refused to accept responsibility” for the damages caused “by me” and he will have “no recourse but to take it to court to collect for the damages [“I”] caused”.
The CA DMV says I was not at fault. My insurance company says I’m not at fault. The police report says I’m not at fault. The police report says the at-fault driver is the woman who hit me. Hey, I was stopped!
Forgive me if this seems too obvious, but I’m going to recommend you talk to a lawyer. Tell him or her what you told us, and go from there. Make sure you ask that if the suit against you gets tossed if you can countersue for your lawyer’s fees. Show him who’s boss, dude.
deny Deny DENY! -
Just direct all communication to the girl who hit you. Just act like it doesn’t faze you in the least. It’s not your fault therefore not your problem.
It sounds like he may be trying to take you to small claims court. I don’t think you would have a problem if you did not have legal representation with you, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt. A lot of lawyers give free initial consultations (but, kinda like the psychics, they may tell you it will take an additional meeting), but call around and see what you can come up with. If he does take you to small claims court, you still have about 6 weeks after you have been notified, and you can always reschedule if you are not ready the first time. Good Luck!
If I decided to hotwire the bulldozer at the construction site down the street, drive it to the supermarket and smash all the cars over to one side of the parking lot, I can assure you that the people would be looking to me to pay for the damages, not the individual whom their car was smashed up against in the middle of all the wreckage.
Usually, I’m the first one to say “See a lawyer”, but this is the rare occasion where this shouldn’t be your first step. Turn this matter over to your insurer. Almost certainly, your insurer has the duty to defend you in cases like this. In fact, if you don’t promptly notify your insurer of this demand, you may lose your coverage.
Only if your insurer declines to defend you in this matter should you see a lawyer. Of course, if you are sued, and your insurer doesn’t promptly step in, you should see a lawyer right away.
Usual disclaimers here: I’m not your lawyer, you’re not my client, I’m probably not licensed in your state, rely on nothing I say, for amusement purposes only, your mileage may vary, see a doctor if symptoms persist more than 3 days.
(BTW, congrats to the SDMB tech staff. It’s actually again possible to write a reponse to something like this without getting frustrated and giving up before finishing.)
The injured party (or his insurance company) is simply moving up the chain to find an available deep pocket. I am not familar with CA law or an inurance maven but I find it quite strange that he is writing the letter to you instead of his insurance company writing a letter to your insurance company and as far as that goes why doesn’t his auto insurance does cover a collision with an uninsured motorist? Something sounds a bit odd here.
I’ve been in traffic court once or twice re speeding tickets over the past 10 years (asked to kill points and pay fine and was successful) and the parade of uninsured motorists (mostly drunks) nabbed for moving violations and accidents was astounding. There has to be something in standard auto insurance to cover this.
First of all, don’t get too flustered. If the other driver takes you to court and wins then your insurance company is required to cover it. But if you do get served you need to notify your insurance company and they will provide legal assistance.
Some years ago we were rear ended while waiting at a stop sign at the end of a freeway offramp. The other driver was not insured so we took her to court. She then countered-sued us claiming we backed into her. (Yeah right!!) At that point we contacted our insurance company and they assigned someone to help us and to be present with us in small claims court. Obviously, we won the case.
Normally, when you win at small claims court that is only half the battle because you still have to collect. However, in California when you have an unpaid judgement against someone resulting from a car accident you can have DMV suspend their drivers license until they pay you! So we were, in fact, able to collect for the damages. Although it appeared her mother actually paid us.
As I stated over on Fathom, talk to your insurance company. That is why people pay insurance premiums, to cover your butt if you get in an accident, your fault or not.
Also, Melin said the same thing, so contact your insurance company in the morning and FAX them a copy of the letter ASAP…the sooner you get them on it the sooner this will be resolved.
I don’t see much of a threat there. If the other party is willing to drive without insurance, aren’t they also going to be willing to drive without a license?
A little intro: IAAL, a Plaintiff’s lawyer (a/k/a “ambulance chaser”), although in Texas so I don’t know the intricacies of CA law.
First, as recommended, you should probably turn the letter over to your insurance agent. Your policy provides that they will hire a laywer to defend your interest if you are in fact sued and/or found liable.
A note here – probably. If the letter isn’t written by a lawyer you might try the more risky strategy of putting it in the trash. Pros: The guy might just go away, and you don’t have to have the claim reported on your insurance. It’s not likely to affect your premiums (at least in TX) but it can’t help. InsCo is looking for an excuse to raise your premium, whether you were at fault or not. Cons: If he does sue you, you run the slight risk of blowing coverage. Most policies require you to promptly notify them when there is a claim made or else you run the (theoretical) risk of losing coverage. In TX at least, however, this is a very low risk. The insurance company has to show that your delay made it significantly more difficult for them to defend the case. Not likely in this situation but you can’t be sure particularly since I don’t know CA law on the subject.
The whys – If the guy doesn’t have a lawyer, he is just frustrated. Sounds to me like he might have a lawyer whispering in his ear, though. Lets say I’m his lawyer. Why even think about bringing you (car #2 – the sandwich) into the case? Playing it safe. In TX at least the Defendnat at trial can point the finger at any person, whether or not a party to the lawsuit. Assume #1 (the plaintiff) sues only #3 (the likely at-fault party). #3’s lawywer can then try to blame it on you (#2). Now, you say, that sounds tough, but – and remember, I am a P laywer – insurance defnese lawyers have a duty to do whatever it takes to get their client (and their real client, the insurance carrier) off the hook. They’ll say that you stopped too quickly. Or stopped too close to #1. Your brake lights didn’t go on. Or who knows what. Maybe they will dispute that you were stopped! (Not through perjury but just because people frequently recall the same event differently). If you’re not in the suit then #3’s lawyer (whether or not he has insurance) is going to be able to employ the “empty chair” defense and point the finger at you, #2. What then? Nine times out of ten the jury calls bulls— on that and pops #3 anyway. One time out of ten they put some or half of the fault on #2. Then the Plaintiff’s lawyer is on the wrong end of a malpractice suit for not naming you the first time around. No do-overs!
Consider it half “defensive legal practice” and half “if #3 is really uninsured, #1 has little to lose.” Still, most P lawyers would be very careful about getting into this case. There is a good chance he won’t find anyone willing to take a case on a contingent fee against an uninsured driver and an insured-but-likely-blameless driver.
In short, you drew a bad break, but don’t sweat it too much. Like any system, the legal system is going to have some huge inefficiencies from time to time. This is one of them.
I now have the police report in front of me. Party 1 is the woman who hit me. Party 2 is myself, and Party 3 is the person in front of me. Party 1’s insurance carrier is “binder”. She told me that she had no insurance when I asked for it. What is a “binder”?
The report states:
So. I have a police report that says I am not at fault. I have a letter from my carrier that says “… this letter is to advise you that we did not fins you at fault for the accident…” And there is a code somewhere on a DMV computer that says I am not at fault. You can be jolly sure I’ll fight this in court if it comes to that!
A binder is a temporary policy issued by the insurance agency. Very often we find people who get a binder (one month’s payment) and then let the policy lapse so at least they have an insurance card to get their car registered and/or show the police. In short, #3 may or may not have had coverage in effect on the day of the wreck.
Regarding the letter from your insurance carrier that says you aren’t at fault. Looks like they are right. But they are a little biased in the matter, if you know what I mean.
Was the letter from a lawyer or just from the driver of my Car#1, Police Report Car#3?
I’m thinking I should respond to his letter, “I got your letter.” (Hey, he didn’t say how I had to respond by August 10th!) Seriously though, I thought of: “I have strong and compelling evidence that proves I am not at fault in this matter. If you decided to persue this in court I will have no recourse but to file a countersuit for legal fees, personal expenses, puntive damages, damages for libel and/or slander and any physical or mental damages that may result from your actions in this matter; as you know, or should know that your charges are false.”
But of course, I’ll see what the insurance company has to say first.
“I have strong and compelling evidence that proves I am not at fault in this matter. If you decided to persue this in court I will have no recourse but to file a countersuit for legal fees, personal expenses, puntive damages, damages for libel and/or slander and any physical or mental damages that may result from your actions in this matter; as you know, or should know that your charges are false.”
Don’t do it. It might make you feel better but it’s not going to intimidate the other fellow. It’s more likely to rile him up. “Don’t mud-wrestle with a pig – you get dirty, and he likes it.”
P.S. You’re no more likely to ever recover any of that stuff from him than he is from you, anyway. Like love letters to mistresses, that letter won’t necessarily sound so good when you are reading it to the jury.
Why is he even involved at this stage of the game in contacting you directly? That he would be jumping the gun like this with legal threats (sans a lawyer) speaks to impatience and/or confusion. Per the other responses it sounds like car #3 just isn’t that familar with the accident insurance drill and may be frustrated or confused about proper insurance etiquette and procedure. If his insurance company can’t collect from the car #1 driver they should be talking with your insurance company not you. Has his insurance company told him that they won’t pay? (not likely). It might be possible (for whatever reason) that he has not contacted his insurance company. I repeat that there is something odd here and the less said by you to him, at this point, the better.
I had something similar happen to me when I dinged a person’s bumper in a company parking lot a few years ago and left a note. We exchanged insurance info and I told him it would be handled by the insurance companies. After about 4 days he started calling me wondering why he hadn’t gotten his check yet. He never repaired the ding BTW he just kept the $ 600 in cash ;).
A polite note to him that you have forwarded his letter to your insurance company for review and that any further correspondence should be directed to them at the following address, should suffice if you feel you need to respond.
A similar thing once happened to my wife, who was stopped at a red light when a guy 3 cars behind hit the guy 2 cars behind who hit the guy 1 car behind, who hit my wife. About a year or so later, we got a letter from a law firm representing the guy 2 cars back (or 1 - I forget) saying that they were suing us. I called up the law firm, demanding an explanation. They said they had a policy of suing everyone involved in the accident and letting the courts figure it out. I was annoyed because I had to go down to the police station and get an accident report, but suffered no other consequences. The insurance lawyers took care of the case.
I sent a letter to the State Supreme Court (which regulates lawyers) complainig about it, but they couldn’t look into it while the case was pending. And after it was over I didn’t have the energy to look into it again.
I would suggest you do not get a lawyer. But make sure your insurance company is aware of the suit, the facts, and has a copy of the police report. Then forget about it.
I used to live in CA and I believe the law is fairly simple…no matter what the reason, you hit the car in front of you and that makes you liable.
HOWEVER, the cause of you hitting the car was of course the dingbat who hit you from behind, so you are in the unfortunate position of suing her for the damages to your car and then suing for the damages your car did to the car in front of you…does that make any sense?
It is supposedly a standard practice and most insurance companies calculate it into the insurance payments. Most people do not even realize the insurance company had to double-dip to get paid for the damages to your car, as well as pay for damages your car made to the drive in front of you.
In any case, even though you were un-Lucky Pierre in the middle, the odds of you personally ever having to pay a penny to the driver in front of you is close to nil. That is unless they re-convene the brain-dead O.J. jury to hear the case…
I’m with the others who feel you shouldn’t send this letter. But if you still feel like sending it, I suggest you tone it down a few notches. Saying that you’re going to countersue for “libel and/or slander” will probably give him the idea that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. And you definitely want him to take your threats seriously, so I suggest you stick with legitimate ones. IANAL, but it sounds like the letter he sent you wouldn’t qualify as libel (and definitely not slander!).