Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection It's difficult for me to decide. I am getting a lot of different responses. On an attorney board I got the response to give them nothing and wait until it goes to court, if ever. I did write to them to cease and desist contact unless they provide evidence, already. They continued with the calls and letters. Why not go after the CA if they just violated 5x. Is the law regarding CA violations in any way different if it's a subrogation claim. Is anyone aware of any specific Federal or California code (law) which requires me to give them insurance info just because someone claims I damaged their car.
Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection 1*anyone aware of any specific (law) which requires me to give them insurance info just because someone claims I damaged their car. fds <- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> 1*I find the idea that any Tom Dick and Harry has the right to such info.with out providing a shred of evidence to the insured. simply because they wanna see it or based on what may well be a false allegation totally preposterous. Their refusal to provide such information sends a strong signal to me that what they are attempting is fraud.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection PS just to clarify something in my own mind. fds You're not trying to avoid giving them the insurance info. because you are or were uninsured are you? You do have insurance right ?!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection I was going back through the posts and discovered this one. FDS noted that he was reluctant to contact his carrier because of the kinds of concerns voiced in this post. When you hire an insurance company, it's a legally-enforceable bet. You bet you're going to do some damage. They bet that you aren't going to do any damage. If you do some damage, and the insurance company has to defend you and perhaps ultimately pay, there is NO WAY they can come back and collect anything from you except in instances where they discover fraud or collusion (staged accident, etc.). If they decide to fight the claim and win, it's their savings. If they decide to settle, it's their money. If they decide to fight the claim on your behalf and you lose, they must pay, up to the policy limits. If your policy limits don't cover it all, and they had an opportunity to settle within the policy limits, the insurance company has to pick up the difference (it's an "excess claim"). If not, you'll be stuck owing the difference to the other side and/or the other side's insurance company. Yes, your premiums could go up and you could be canceled and having to look for insurance elsewhere. Small price to pay if a $10k claim got taken care of. But be mindful of the requirement to promptly report claims ... check the language of your policy. Play chicken if you want, but understand the value of what you're giving up if you do so.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection I find that a little difficult to believe, but not all attorneys have a great deal of understanding about car insurance.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection im willing to bet he has or had no insurance. I hear this story 10x a week from people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection Well, it would sure be dumb to come here for advice and not tell the entire situation. I'm sure that happens a lot, but we can only give advice based on what we are told about the situation. The majority of people here have said, "tell your insurance company." Several of us are in the insurance business. The OP wants to handle it some other way. Nobody here is agreeing with him. He keeps reporting back, I guess hoping that someone will tell him he is right, and he can sue the CA or something. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem needs to be a nail. All I can say is "call the insurance company" - doesn't matter if you're being contacted by a CA or the man in the moon. I don't know how old you are, but one thing we all learn over time: There is a system in place in business. Certain things are handled certain ways. In other words, there are rules that consumers must follow, and if the consumer doesn't go by the rules, they can't hold others to the rules. One of the rules with insurance is you always notify your company of a pending possible claim. They are not going to change the rules for you, and you can't hold "them" to the rules, if you haven't followed the rules. If you didn't have insurance at the time all this started, tell us. If you just think that because it wasn't you, you will win in the end - it doesn't work that way.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection One thing we must understand and breeze is 100 % correct. Driving is a privelage, not a right. And there are rules that we follow as privelaged drivers., one being that if a person accuses you of hitting their car, and wants you to pay for it, you report is to the comapny that holds your financial responsibility for the vehicle. and they decide not to pay. If the story goes as it is told bythe original poster no insurance company in the univers is gonna pay that claim. Especially in todays market. Im not in the insurance business, Im in the law enforcement business. And the whole prove it runaround when the driver is in an accident either at fault or not. Is an awful stron indicator that he/she does not have FR. Now if you dont have insurance tell us and we can help you form there , its not like were out to get you. were out to help you.
1*If you didn't have insurance at the time all this started, tell us 2* If you just think that because it wasn't you, you will win in the end - it doesn't work that way. breeze ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> 1*I don't see where insured or not has any bearing on this case. He don't need insurance to cover a phantom accident. 2*Why should fds be put through all this over an alleged accident that never involved him or his car????? Why is he not entitled to tangible evidence that there is any merit to the alleged claim against him.
No, he doesn't. But on the chance that the other side can spin a yarn good enough for a judge (which is actually pretty good, if they have an attorney and he doesn't), he'd better avail himself of his insurance. His insurance will hire an attorney for him. Because the bar is set rather low in tems of what triggers the requirement to exchange insurance info. A mere allegation can be enough. He is entitled, but only in the course of a court proceeding. He should want to avoid that. Oscar Wilde said "I was only ruined twice, once when I lost a lawsuit -- and once when I won." Insurance lifts the lawsuit burden from his shoulders.
Because this isn't a case of a CA harassing him, as you try to lead him to believe. It's a case of him being ACCUSED of being involved in an accident. At the point that a SUBROGATION agent is asking for insurance information, it's already been reported to someone's insurance company (and likely the police) as him BEING involved in an accident. If this is truly a fraudulent claim, the faster he gets his insurance company involved, the better. But since no one seems to want to take advice from the people involved in the business, I guess you'll just keep telling him to send C&D letters and withhold legally required information. So be it. Most insurance companies will tell you that if it's fraud, the sooner they're involved, the better. My insurance company sends a magazine to us periodically, and the last one had a big write up about people who go around filing fraudulent claims, and about how prompt action helps to defeat this. But if everyone wants to pay higher rates because of fraudulent claims, and encouraging someone who has already waited too long to compound the insurance company's (and his) problems, well, there's nothing more I can say. Probably the reason a lawyer board told you to wait is because they don't understand that this is in SUBROGATION. Someone has filed a claim, it's been paid, and that insurance company is trying to recover their loss. That's what subrogation means. And, as I said, if he's reported for not having insurance, his troubles have just begun.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection 1* Driving is a privelage, not a right. 2*And there are rules that we follow as privelaged drivers., one being that if a person accuses you of hitting their car, and wants you to pay for it, 3* you report it to the comapny that holds your financial responsibility for the vehicle. 4*The whole prove it run-around when the driver is in an accident either at fault or not. Is an awful strong indicator that he/she does not have FR. 5*The whole prove it run-around when the driver is in an accident either at fault or not. sahlegian ================ 1*Where are fds rights against trumped up false claims like this??????? 2* However FDS was not a driver in this case. 3*I don't see where fds is financially responsible for an accident that he was in no way involved with or in.!.!. 4*Yeah just like a consumer demanding validation from a CA is a strong indicator that the debt is valid. 5*What accident ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Weird auto insurance collection He don't need insurance to cover a wreck that never happened.
1*If you fail to provide your insurance information, they may do as they have threatened, and report to the state that you are uninsured. 2*Even if you later prove that you were, you will have to answer for why you failed to report the incident to your insurance company. 3*And, as flacorps noted, in some states you could lose your drivers license over this. Hedwig ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> 1*How do they know fds wasn't insured. Can they prove it? 2*What accident? How could fds report an accident that he wasn't in? 3*Loose your license over failure to report an accident that didn't happen - good grief. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
If one party has reported it, it is legally an accident. As someone else said, the details would come out in court or in an investigation. And if he is alleged to have been involved in an accident, and won't provide his insurance information, it is presumed that he has no insurance. Insurance information is not like your SSN. It is not private information. It has been requested in the course of an insurance settlement, and he is obligated to reply. And yes, he needs insurance for a wreck that never happened. He needs insurance whether he has an accident or not, and must prove it when requested. If this is a subrogation case, he has been "involved" in an accident, whether real or not. Breeze, I agree. He can write to us from jail.
1*Because this isn't a case of a CA harassing him, as you try to lead him to believe. 2*it's already been reported to someone's insurance company (and likely the police) as him BEING involved in an accident. 3*And, as I said, if he's reported for not having insurance, his troubles have just begun. __________ Hedwig ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> 1*So why is a CA involved then? 2*Safeco has fds plate number.All they had to do is turn it over to the police,so why haven't the police investigated interviewed contacted or cited FDS if he were involved in an accident. Doesn't this seem odd to any of you? Naturally if somebody is trying to pull something on fds they wouldn't want the police involved. 3*What happens when they report to the DMV that fds don't have insurance and the DMVs records show fds is insured? Why didn't they take this simple step to find out about fds insurance got what they wanted and been on their way instead of badgering feds for months while getting nothing?
Isn't it amazing how people who have never worked in the field are suddenly experts who know more than those of us who do or have worked in the field?
This was the original post. It is the rest of you who decided this was a CA. fds never said it was a CA. He said he ignored calls from an INSURANCE company. One word of advice--this is never good thing to do!!!
