Friend X is Korean living in the US (Florida) until April on internship.
Friend X’s roommate, Z, offers to let X use his car to learn to drive, pretty much giving X carte blanche to drive it around the parking lot whenever he wants.
X hits a Buick. Relatively minor damage to both cars.
X offers to pay for repairs to Buick (about $2400); roommate Z and Buick owner decide to go through insurance instead.
X pays for repairs to Z’s car, but Z tells X that that isn’t enough. To make things square, X must buy repaired car from Z (so that Z can make down payment on new car). X agrees, buys Z’s car for about $2000 (and subsequently sells it at a slight loss).
2 Months later, Z gets word back from insurance company about $500 deductible and higher rates, and now says that X must pay or he (roommate Z) will sue.
Q: Leaving aside any moral obligations (which are complicated by other events not related here), what if any legal obligations does X have? And even if Z can sue (small claims?), what is the bottom line given that X is leaving the country in 6 months (he does want to come back)?
Moderator’s Note: I don’t think this is a debate. Since you’re really just asking for opinions, I’ll move it to IMHO.
You should realize that whatever forum a thread like this is in, any legal advice you get will be the off-the-cuff opinions of anonymous strangers who may or may not actually be lawyers, and who in any case have no direct knowledge of any of the facts of the case and don’t necessarily know what the law is in your particular jurisdiction. (Assuming that you are telling the truth about what your particular jurisdiction is.)
Geez, I suppose I should have put all that in a smaller typeface, huh?
I’m confused too. If they went through insurance both cars would’ve been fixed and paid for by Z’s insurance company and X shouldn’t have had to pay for repairs to Z’s car. If they went through insurance, more than likely, the deductible would have been subtracted from the amount the insurance company paid out for the repairs to the car and Z would’ve had to make up the difference at that time… unless the cost of repairs was less than the claim check issued by the company and then he would’ve had money in his pocket.
As for contacting the insurance company and telling them Z wasn’t driving… it doesn’t matter. X had permission from Z to drive the car, therefore, X is a permissible user and the insurance company is responsible for the claim. Z’s insurance went up because of the at-fault accident even though he wasn’t the one driving the vehicle.
IMO, X has done more than enough just by buying the car from Z. I wouldn’t have even done that much. That’s just another good reason not to let anyone who is not a rated driver on your insurance drive your car. I would tell Z to live and learn and get over it.
[sub]I work for an insurance company in the Underwriting department and I have a little experience with how we handle some of our claims. Just take all this with a grain of salt because I don’t know all the little details and insurance companies all have different ways of doing things.[/sub]
The best I can tell, Z is talking about the insurance on a car X didn’t drive.
My nonlegal advice to X is to forget the matter. X will likely be back in Korean before the conclusion of any lawsuit and its not likely to cause any trouble regarding his return to this country.
The immigration service already have about 10 million people they should know about but don’t and many they do know about aren’t being tracted anyway.
Hi Kiki, it’s nice to see another insurance person here.
furt
If X did pay for the damages and then buy the car, he has done more than enough IMO. He paid for $2400 repairs, then paid $2000 for the car and then sold it for a loss. X is out a lot of money. Z sounds a bit greedy.
Z can take X to small claims court (anyone can go to small claims court, even without a case) but, I think Z would be laughed out of court.
The company I work for wouldn’t have raised the rates on Z’s insurance policy. The at fault accident would have followed X on HIS insurance policy should he try to buy one.
If this is an honest mistake, and not just Z trying to rip off X then I think Z needs to simply call his insurance company and explain to them that X was driving.
If a deductible is involved, that means Z’s insurance company paid for damage to his vehicle. That means that X never should have had to pay $2400 to repair the car because the insurance policy had already paid it.
It sounds like Z is just trying to take advantage of X.
To clarify the issue, and if it makes a difference:
What was NOT paid three months ago was the ($2400) damage to the Buick. My freind X OFFERED to pay for that out-of-pocket, but for some reason Z and Buick owner took it to insurance. Z’s insurance paid Buick Owner’s insurance, and now Z’s insurance has told Z his rates will go up.
X’s understanding of the deal was that his taking the car off Z’s hands got him out of the situation. I think that Z is just not very smart, didn’t really realize how much his rates would go up, and is trying to redo the deal.
My own take is that X may well still have SOME obligation to Z; but Z has been an absolute and utter ass about the whole thing … (long story with many incidents here) … so that’s why X is ready to just say. “Screw you, sue me in Korea.” His main fear is that it’ll somehow go on his “record.” He could barely believe me when I told him that he had no chance of being arrested.
If X was uninsured, and Z was named as the driver on the insurance claim, I’d imagine he could be in a bit of fraud trouble. The insurance company won’t like that they paid out on an uninsured driver.
Z should have accepted the out-of-pocket repair costs from X. X met his obligations, and there’s no reason he should be expected to make up the difference in Z’s premiums. I can’t imagine why he preferred to go through insurance, as long as the Buick’s owner was cooperative.
I am not sure about Florida law but in many states the car is always the primary insured.
In that case, when you loan your car to someone not listed as a driver, that person is covered just as if he were the owner of the car. Some states limit the liability to what the state minimum is.
In this scenario the insurance company will extend coverage to the driver but in doing so will penalize the owner if that driver has an accident. The thinking behind this is the insurance company is paying money based on the actions of the owner in regards to who they lend their car
It makes sense to increase the rate of someone who gives a care to a person who does not yet know how to drive. Unless they had an agreement beforehand the owner needs to just pay the higher rate and learn a lesson from it.
My above post still stands. Z’s insurance should have paid to repair Z’s car and the Buick. X would have been named on the claim as a “permissable driver” because he had Z’s permission to drive the car. Again… don’t let anyone who isn’t a rated driver on your insurance policy drive your vehicle!! It’s not their car, they’re not paying for the insurance so they don’t give a shit if they get into an accident, regardless how minor, because it won’t follow them around for the next few years. If X didn’t get a ticket the day of the accident for not having a US drivers license (assuming they called the police and filed a report) he probably won’t get one. I don’t think he should give Z another penny either. Tell Z to stop whining about his insurance going up and stop letting other people drive his car!
My above post still stands. Z’s insurance should have paid to repair Z’s car and the Buick. X would have been named on the claim as a “permissable driver” because he had Z’s permission to drive the car. Again… don’t let anyone who isn’t a rated driver on your insurance policy drive your vehicle!! It’s not their car, they’re not paying for the insurance so they don’t give a shit if they get into an accident, regardless how minor, because it won’t follow them around for the next few years. If X didn’t get a ticket the day of the accident for not having a US drivers license (assuming they called the police and filed a report) he probably won’t get one. I don’t think he should give Z another penny either. Tell Z to stop whining about his insurance going up and stop letting other people drive his car!
We know that Z had at least liability insurance, because the Buick repairs were paid by Z’s insurance. Z probably did not have collision coverage for their car. So, X paid for the damages. Seems fair. X has made Z whole again just like an insurance company would have done. Rules of indemnification (been in the insurance biz too long). X is now being extorted by Z Because they don’t think its fair that their rates are going up because of a bad decision to let X drive their car. It’s an at-fault claim against Z’s insurance because of an accident caused by a X, a permissable driver. X shouldn’t pay anything more.