Anyone know about auto accidents/insurance/sue?

[Btl_Rkt_Sci]

My father in law hit a car today and likely totalled it and the other driver was *claiming* her and her children are injured. When she finds out he drives a company car (his company) she may try to sue him.

The other driver did not have auto insurance and her children were also not in car seats. Does this help him any?

 

[I_FLY_LOW]

Don't hold me to this, but from what I've heard, if they didn't have insurance, they don't have a leg to stand on...

 

[Law1911]

The other driver did not have auto insurance and her children were also not in car seats. Does this help him any?

In Louisiana, there is the no pay, no play law. If they don't have insurance, his companies insurance could still have some liability, but it wouldn't be to the fullest extent.

 

[JWG223]

You can always be sued in civil court. For anything. At any time. Find a lawyer and sit down and spend the $100 or whatever to get a consultation.

 

[Russo]

i've heard of this before... the argument is created by saying: "if she/he didn't have insurance, then they shouldn't be on the road, and if they weren't on the road, this accident wouldn't have taken place." problem is, we have some wacked out attorney's and judges who cause everyone's insurance to go up entertaining these law suits...

 

[pulpsmack]

If you can't fully track, research, or understand all of this, I would respectfully suggest you consult with a professional who will on your behalf.
From the LA legislature site:


R.S. 32:866 Compulsory motor vehicle liability security; failure to comply; limitation of damages
NOTE: Paragraph (A)(1) eff. until Jan. 1, 2010. See Acts 2008, No. 921, §1.

A.(1) There shall be no recovery for the first ten thousand dollars of bodily injury and no recovery for the first ten thousand dollars of property damage based on any cause or right of action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, for such injury or damages occasioned by an owner or operator of a motor vehicle involved in such accident who fails to own or maintain compulsory motor vehicle liability security.

NOTE: Paragraph (A)(1) as amended by Acts 2008, No. 921, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2010.

A.(1) There should be no recovery for the first fifteen thousand dollars of bodily injury and no recovery for the first twenty-five thousand dollars of property damage based on any cause or right of action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, for such injury or damages occasioned by an owner or operator of a motor vehicle involved in such accident who fails to own or maintain compulsory motor vehicle liability security.

(2) For purposes of this Section, the meaning of "bodily injury" and "property damage" is governed by the applicable motor vehicle liability insurance policy or, in the event of security other than an insurance policy, the meaning of such terms is that which is commonly ascribed thereto.

(3)(a) The limitation of recovery provisions of this Subsection do not apply if the driver of the other vehicle:

(i) Is cited for a violation of R.S. 14:98 as a result of the accident and is subsequently convicted of or pleads nolo contendere to such offense.

(ii) Intentionally causes the accident.

(iii) Flees from the scene of the accident.

(iv) At the time of the accident, is in furtherance of the commission of a felony offense under the law.

(b) The limitation of recovery provisions of this Subsection do not apply if at the time of the accident, the other vehicle is not being operated and the vehicle is not in violation of the provisions of Chapter 1 of this Title.

B. Each person who is involved in an accident in which the other motor vehicle was not covered by compulsory motor vehicle liability security and who is found to be liable for damages to the owner or operator of the other motor vehicle may assert as an affirmative defense the limitation of recovery provisions of Subsection A of this Section.

C. If the owner of a motor vehicle, who fails to own or maintain compulsory motor vehicle liability security, institutes an action to recover damages in any amount, regardless of whether such owner or operator is at fault, and is awarded an amount equal to or less than the minimum amount of compulsory motor vehicle liability security, then such owner or operator shall be assessed and held liable for all court costs incurred by all parties to the action.

D. Each person who applies for a driver's license, registers a motor vehicle, or operates or owns a motor vehicle in this state is deemed to have given his consent to be subject to and governed by the provisions of this Section. All persons who apply for the issuance or renewal of a driver's license, motor vehicle title, or motor vehicle registration shall sign a declaration on a form developed by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections pursuant to rule and regulation that the person acknowledges and gives consent to the requirements and provisions of this Section and that the person will comply with all provisions of this Section and the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law. Proof of whether the person obtained or signed such declaration is irrelevant to the application of this Section.

E. Nothing in this Section shall preclude a passenger in a vehicle from asserting a claim to recover damages for injury, death, or loss which he occasioned, in whole or in part, by the negligence of another person arising out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle. This Subsection shall not apply to a passenger who is also the owner of the uninsured motor vehicle involved in the accident.

NOTE: Subsection F eff. until Jan. 1, 2010. See Acts 2008, No. 921, §1.

F.(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no insurer shall lose any rights of subrogation for claims paid under the applicable insurance policy for the recovery of any sum in excess of the first ten thousand dollars of bodily injury and the first ten thousand dollars of property damages.

(2) In claims where no suit is filed, the claimant's insurer shall have all rights to recover any amount paid by the claimant's insurer on behalf of the insured for the recovery of any sum in excess of the first ten thousand dollars of bodily injury and the first ten thousand dollars of property damages.

NOTE: Subsection F as amended by Acts 2008, No. 921, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2010.

F.(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no insurer shall lose any rights of subrogation for claims paid under the applicable insurance policy for the recovery of any sum in excess of the first fifteen thousand dollars of bodily injury and the first twenty-five thousand dollars of property damages.

(2) In claims where no suit is filed, the claimant's insurer shall have all rights to recover any amount paid by the claimant's insurer on behalf of the insured for the recovery of any sum in excess of the first fifteen thousand dollars of bodily injury and the first twenty-five thousand dollars of property damages.

G.(1) Except for newly acquired vehicles added to a policy subject to the policy terms, the issuance, change, or adjustment of any motor vehicle liability security or insurance policy subsequent to a motor vehicle accident, without proof of coverage having been bound prior to such motor vehicle accident, shall not effectuate any of the following:

(a) The recovery for injury or damages that are otherwise prohibited under this Section.

(b) The defeat of any affirmative defense otherwise allowed under this Section.

(c) The avoidance of liability for court costs otherwise required under this Section.

(2) Reinstatement provisions of a policy during the premium payment grace period specified in the policy shall not be invalidated by the provisions of this Section.

H. The provisions of this Part shall not apply to any vehicle which is legally parked at the time of the accident.

Acts 1997, No. 1476, §4, eff. Sept. 6, 1998; Acts 1999, No. 1085, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2000; Acts 2003, No. 532, §1; Acts 2008, No. 921, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2010.

NOTE: See Acts 1997, No. 1476, §5(D)(2). The rate reduction day was the date on which the judgment in the lawsuit became final, May 8, 1998. Sections 2 through 4 became effective 120 days thereafter, Sept. 6, 1998.

 

[hunter5567]

Hmmm, looks like they don't have a leg to stand on and if they attempt to sue will be held liable for costs. He lucked up hitting an uninsured motorist. I wonder if he can sue them for hitting them because they shouldn't have been there operating a vehicle with no insurance.

 

[TomTerrific]

It's been my experience that the insurance companies deal with this every day and know what is going on.

They may not do what you think they ought to do, but they generally know what they are doing.

 

[RyanW]

I have a pretty good lawyer for this stuff too! He helped me when I was hit by a "minimally insured" motorist with horrible insurance, USAgencies, and I finally was forced to sue to get my medical bills paid.

 

[Btl_Rkt_Sci]

Ryan, you think that lawyer works the other side too (the at-fault person)?

 

[RyanW]

If there's money to be made, I don't see why not. He's actually a pretty good guy too. His name is Keith Richards, he's in BR on Perkins across from Pennington.

 

[oldman45]

I deal with this type thing daily.

The "No Play, No Pay" law only applies to the owner and driver of the uninsured vehicle. Any passenger can file a claim for injury.

 

[I_FLY_LOW]

So, can the children sue?

 

[RyanW]

Would the parent, being the "guardian" of the child, be able to file a lawsuit on the child's behalf? Is the liability limit per incident, or per claimant?

 

[oldman45]

I Fly Low

Yes. Any passenger can sue. The only ones prevented by law would be the vehicle owner and/or driver.

That said, the law only allows the loss of the first $15,000 in property damage and the first $15,000 in bodily injury. In the event of a driver/owner being injured with damages over the first $15,000 exclusion would be able to recover as well. Example: The driver of an uninsured vehicle is injured with broken bones, requiring surgery or such where damages would be in excess of $15,000, they can then recover for the excess.

 

[oldman45]

Ryan

Yes, the parents can sue on behalf of their minor children. This also applies to cases where an insured host driver with children in the car is at fault. They can sue themselves, hence their own insurance company, on the behalf of any minor children.

 

[mrsfury]

oldman is totally correct.

 

[I_FLY_LOW]

AH, I was wondering about that. Thanks for the info.

 

[Leadslugga]

If they do sue, your father in law probably doesn't have much to worry about. First of all, if they are only claiming injury they can't be hurt too badly (not like there were clearly broken bones or anything). I'm sure that his insurer (the company's insurer in the case of a company car) will be able to cover all the damages. Secondly, even if the injuries are severe, Louisiana is a comparative fault state, so the fact that the kids were not in carseats will reduce the amount of fault on the part of your father in law and therefore reduce the amount that the injured parties can recover from him.

I doubt he has anything to worry about from a lawsuit if he is insured. If anything the most fallout he will get, if any, is from the employer being pissed that they might have to pay a deductible or increased premiums or whatever based on their policy.

 

[Btl_Rkt_Sci]

He owns the company. She caused more damage by her inability to control the vehicle than he did by hitting her at 10 MPH. He hit her, she panicked and hit the gas and ran into a light pole. Cops writing seatbelt tickets neadby approaced and she panicked again, threw it in reverse and hit the cop car...all on tape.