A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat anecdotes
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Accident report GRRRRRR OT and all that



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 5th 05, 05:32 PM
Monique Y. Mudama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2005-05-05, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned:


Monique Y. Mudama wrote:


Is this really the way it works? I could've sworn we (Colorado)
recently switched to no-fault, but I've been hit twice since I got
my car last year, and both times the other guy's insurance company
paid for the damages.


Maybe there was a "changeover" period before it actually took
effect? SFAIK, Annie's description is the way it's SUPPOSED to
work. (Although there may be differences in details, in the various
states that have it.)


Google knows all:

http://www.dora.state.co.us/dora_pages/faq.htm

Quote:

What is "no-fault" auto insurance?
No-fault insurance, also known as PIP or Personal Injury Protection,
provides coverage for certain medical and rehabilitation expenses from
injuries sustained in an automobile accident. It pays benefits for
injuries whether or not the insured person is negligent or "at fault".
(Property damage is the responsibility of the at-fault party.) The
no-fault law expires on July 1, 2003. All policies with an effective
date on or after July 1 will be issued under a "tort" auto insurance
law.
So ... sounds like we're not no-fault anymore. I had it backwards. But
even if we were, the at-fault person would still have to pay property
damages.


--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca
  #22  
Old May 5th 05, 06:24 PM
223rem
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

tanada wrote:
OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and
$100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him claimed
that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she hit
Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW
she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is still
considered totally at fault for the accident.

Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to
replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now.
Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance
system that will reward an illegal driver.


It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver of the van
was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have been speeding,
and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because
she did not cause the collision.

Try to be thankful that nobody died.
  #23  
Old May 5th 05, 07:06 PM
jmcquown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

223rem wrote:
tanada wrote:
OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and
$100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him
claimed that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before
she hit
Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW
she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is
still considered totally at fault for the accident.

Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to
replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now.
Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance
system that will reward an illegal driver.


It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver
of the van was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have
been speeding,
and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because
she did not cause the collision.

Try to be thankful that nobody died.


Were you there? How do you know the driver of the van was at fault? Just
because the cop said so? He wasn't there, either! You really have no right
to jump on Pam in this manner. You don't know her or her family.

You're the idiot who wants to write on his cat with a permanent marker.
Obviously not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

Jill


  #24  
Old May 5th 05, 07:33 PM
Magic Mood Jeep©
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

223rem wrote:
tanada wrote:
OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and
$100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him
claimed that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she
hit
Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW
she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is
still considered totally at fault for the accident.

Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to
replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now.
Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance
system that will reward an illegal driver.


It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver
of the van was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have
been speeding, and driving on a suspended license, but that's not
relevant, because
she did not cause the collision.

Try to be thankful that nobody died.


Actaully, had she not been speeding, she might have been able to stop.


  #25  
Old May 5th 05, 08:10 PM
tanada
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2005-05-04, pmendhall penned:

"tanada" wrote in message
hlink.net...

We thought we had full coverage, but geico says not.


What does your policy or last statement say? You will probably have
a printed copy somewhere. Seems like maybe you have a claims
adjuster who is trying to avoid work, avoid payment or both.



Even if you don't have a printed copy, the ins. companies I've used
allow you to view your policy online.


Geico sent us a statement dated Friday (April 29th, the date of the
accident) that states that we're not covered, but supposedly our lien
holder is. We called the bank and turned them loose into the mess. I'm
at the sit back and watch the floor show stage.

Pam S.
  #26  
Old May 5th 05, 08:14 PM
tanada
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

223rem wrote:


It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver of
the van
was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have been speeding,
and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because
she did not cause the collision.

Try to be thankful that nobody died.



First of all, I am thankful that no one died. Second, the anger and
frustration is normal after an accident. Yes, Mike is at fault. We've
never denied that. However, the insurance company agrees with us that
the woman had to have been driving at excess speed. However, there is
no way, according to GEICO that we can prove it. So Mike takes the
ticket and the hit.

Pam S. emotionally drained right now.
  #27  
Old May 5th 05, 09:03 PM
CatNipped
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"tanada" wrote in message
ink.net...
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2005-05-04, pmendhall penned:

"tanada" wrote in message
thlink.net...

We thought we had full coverage, but geico says not.

What does your policy or last statement say? You will probably have
a printed copy somewhere. Seems like maybe you have a claims
adjuster who is trying to avoid work, avoid payment or both.



Even if you don't have a printed copy, the ins. companies I've used
allow you to view your policy online.


Geico sent us a statement dated Friday (April 29th, the date of the
accident) that states that we're not covered, but supposedly our lien
holder is. We called the bank and turned them loose into the mess. I'm
at the sit back and watch the floor show stage.

Pam S.


Were you still paying on the van? In that case I would say you would *have*
to have had comprehensive - your lien holder would have insisted on it.
When we had another insurance and decided to switch to progressive, the
other insurance notified the bank when our payment for renewal was *two
days* overdue (thankfully we had already notified the bank, otherwise they
would have purchased comprehensive insurance *for* us and added the
(outrageously high) payments to our car note).

Hugs,

CatNipped


  #28  
Old May 5th 05, 09:13 PM
CatNipped
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"tanada" wrote in message
ink.net...
223rem wrote:


It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver of
the van
was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have been speeding,
and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because
she did not cause the collision.

Try to be thankful that nobody died.



First of all, I am thankful that no one died. Second, the anger and
frustration is normal after an accident. Yes, Mike is at fault. We've
never denied that. However, the insurance company agrees with us that the
woman had to have been driving at excess speed. However, there is no way,
according to GEICO that we can prove it. So Mike takes the ticket and the
hit.

Pam S. emotionally drained right now.


Well, first of all, *nobody* is at fault if it truly *is* an accident - it's
not like Mike said, 'Hmmm, I think I'll purposely drive right into the path
of this speeding vehicle!". However, if I were the police officer in charge
of the accident investigation, I would have to take a hard look at *why*
someone was driving around without a license - it would seem like there is a
pattern of *some* sort of reckless behavior there (either too many traffic
violations or failing to buy the proper insurance) if her license was
suspended. Even if you have the "right of way", speeding can negate your
"right" by causing the other person to misjudge the time it would take to
clear your path. [It's a shame it was raining - there probably wouldn't be
any skid marks to measure to determine how fast she was going. However,
speed limits are set for dry, lighted conditions - if it were raining she
should have been going *slower* than the posted speed limit!]

Hugs,

CatNipped


  #29  
Old May 5th 05, 10:32 PM
polonca12000
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lots of purrs, best wishes and hugs,
--
Polonca & Soncek

"tanada" wrote in message
ink.net...
OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and
$100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him claimed
that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she hit
Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW
she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is still
considered totally at fault for the accident.

Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to
replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now.
Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance
system that will reward an illegal driver.

Even though the woman was driving with a revoked license, the woman was
judged to be not at fault. I want to know what she did to lose her
license. The damage to both her Lincoln Town Car and the van is
horrendous. I don't think that she could have been doing only 45 in a
45 at the time of impact. It is a long straight stretch of road. There
is now way that she couldn't have seen Mike and that big white van.
Yes, it was raining, but not heavily. So that shouldn't be an excuse
for her. Again, Please help me get over my anger with this. I upset
Rob and Jim by calling her what I think of her, and I don't usually use
that kind of language.

And don't ask me about the VA and their treatment of Rob lately.

Pam S. sill living a nightmare.



  #30  
Old May 6th 05, 04:18 AM
pmendhall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"tanada" wrote in message
ink.net...
Geico sent us a statement dated Friday (April 29th, the date of the
accident) that states that we're not covered, but supposedly our lien
holder is. We called the bank and turned them loose into the mess. I'm
at the sit back and watch the floor show stage.


If you were paying the premiums, how is it that you are not covered? We
won't even get into how the lien hold is covered but you're not. I think I
would let the bank fight this one too. Let us know how it goes.

Weird. Not going to buy Geico after this mess. Not that we were going to
switch from State Farm.

Diane


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.