Southern auto owners

[two_bit_score]

I could 100% be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first or last time. My understanding was your insurance would be on the hook, and then either you, or your insurance would be able to try to sue car 1 for the fault, but you or your insurance would make car 3 whole, and then it would be on you to go after car 1? I could be completely wrong.

Yes, you are wrong, at least in most states who apply the doctrine of comparative negligence. Forget about insurance because in almost every state you cannot mention insurance at trial. Who has insurance or doesn’t has nothing to do with who is at fault.

 

[John0829]

All I can say is that when I was hit by the tractor trailer my insurance paid for everything, vehicle, medical, ect. and then took back everything they had paid out from the law suit settlement.

 

[ruffdog]

He was evidently not the at fault driver, ( even though he had to have his vehicle towed off our property)
At fault fled the scene.

It would seem that BOTH fled the scene. It may be possible to hold the persons vehicle until compensation has been paid.

 

[ruffdog]

From the sound of it, insurance companies in Florida have a free reign of high rates and declining coverage.

 

[paulsharvey]

From the sound of it, insurance companies in Florida have a free reign of high rates and declining coverage.

Try looking into our home owners insurance... Insurance is a dang legally mandated scam.

 

[two_bit_score]

Try looking into our home owners insurance... Insurance is a dang legally mandated scam.

It seems that way but actually only minimum liability limits are legally mandated on vehicles. Most people do not feel safe in our litigious society so they choose to buy higher levels of coverage.

Lien holders may require physical loss coverage to protect themselves in the event of a loss to their collateral. This is a contractural requirement imposed by the bank as a condition of loaning you money on the property. It’s not mandated by government directly.

 

[djefferis]

Simple answer - Florida abolished joint and several liability in 2020 as part of tort reform.

What it means for OP here - joint and several is simply when there are multiple parties to an accident - the negligence free party can hold any one party liable
- even when fault is potentially jointly held amongst multiple people. So if one party contributed 1% to the accident - they could be pursued for 100% of the damages (even when another party is 99% at fault - of course the party found 1% could recover what they were forced to pay from the 99% party - but that’s irrelevant to this topic).

Without joint and several - you can only contribute EXACTLY what the party you are pursuing is responsible for. If a car forced them off the road and there was a police report made confirming this - my opinion is it would be a difficult case to make in a small claims case. All they need to prove is they are not completely at fault - which is a pretty easy barrier to reach with a police report as described. Could you prove 5% - possibly - maybe even 10% - but if you have 6k in damages - your recovery would be at best 300-600.

With that in mind - my personal recommendation is simple. Let the known party know you are willing to accept $1k for a full/final release of claims against them. They know they are in a position of strength liability wise - but they may be willing to pay to simply protect themselves and their client from a small claims suit (and the associated cost of defending the matter/answering).

One other word of advice - if your thinking of inflating your damage to offset the weak liability in this case (in example presenting an inflated estimate of 20k and asking for 6k knowing you won’t win 100%) DO NOT. This will be blatantly obvious and will create far more problems for you in all likelihood.

Again - just my personal opinions, this is not intended as legal advice as I am not an attorney in your state.

 

[workinonit]

So does that mean the car that the insurance company of the car that caused his fence damage won't pay for their customer's auto damage either?

 

[paulsharvey]

So does that mean the car that the insurance company of the car that caused his fence damage won't pay for their customer's auto damage either?

I'm assuming he didn't have insurance, if he left the seen?

 

[workinonit]

I was referring to the other car. The one that refused to pay for his damage. If they didn't pay for the fence damage I'm assuming they didn't pay for the car's damage.