adjusterjack
Super Moderator
A distinction without a difference.
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Insurance company won't cover my accident and the other party is coming after me for 9k
- Thread Starter Jesseacronym
- Start date
- Status
A distinction without a difference.
Jesseacronym
New Member
Regardless, there's no way 9k of expenses were required after their insurance covered the damages. I'm going to hire an attorney and fight it. I'll update this thread with the results.
army judge
Super Moderator
Jesseacronym
New Member
Not really the point. Online forums should be about sharing info that others could potentially learn from. If that isn't the case here, then good day to you.
Thanks for all the advice.
cbg
Super Moderator
If there was 9k of damages after the insurance payment, then pardon me but yes you should be required to pay it. Since you admit to being at fault. (There is no difference, legally, between "technically at fault" and "at fault")
Jesseacronym
New Member
Regardless, I'm going to fight it. There's no way that there was 9k worth of damages as no property was damaged. I could be wrong but I'm confident that I won't be paying what they're currently asking for. Thank you everyone for your insight.
flyingron
Well-Known Member
If it wasn't covered, it wasn't covered and you can be SUSPENDED for it.
I can almost guarantee that if a lawyer is seeking a judgement against you, he WILL report it to the DMV when he gets it to get leverage to collect.
Highwayman
Well-Known Member
Highwayman
Well-Known Member
So that means your vehicle was not insured.
You seem to like playing games with words.
Jesseacronym
New Member
Just because you're found at fault by the insurance company doesn't mean you were completely at fault for the outcome of the accident. I was struck by a person that ran a red. Had she not done that, there would have been no accident. But this doesn't matter. As far as insurance companies are concerned, you pull out onto a street and cause an accident, you're at fault.
But none of this even matters and was only mentioned for the sake of the conversation. I'm unquestionably at fault, however, it is unlikely that this person needed 9k to take care of damages outside of what their insurance covered. It isn't uncommon for people to seek a higher amount than what is fairly owed. That is why I'm fighting it in court. I'm sure I'm going to pay. But I'm willing to bet it won't be 9k.
Jesseacronym
New Member
If you read the rest of the thread, you will realize I was insured. My insurance company is attempting to use a loophole to get out paying for damages. I am in the process of appealing their decision and will fight them on their decision.
army judge
Super Moderator
You are 100% correct.
Guilt isn't determined by the issuance of traffic citation.
Guilty or Not Guilty is determined after a judge or jury has deliberated, rendering a verdict.
Even if a person has been cited for a traffic violation, he or she is innocent in the eyes of the law.
Such innocence is proclaimed and protected via our constitutions (federal and state).
- Status
Share this page
