Southern auto owners

[1930]

Recently a vehicle crossed the median, drove through 2 of my fences ( one inside the other ) flattened a picnic table and knocked over some trees.
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.
Southern auto owners was the insurance carrier of the vehicle which came through the fence and have told us that they are not responsible and will not pay out for our damages.
It’s a nearly vacant lot with only a fruit stand pavilion on it.
Roughly 4500-6000 in damages in my guestimation.
Florida, anyone been in similar predicament?

 

[Redlands Okie]

Sounds like time for a lawyer or let your insurance company handle it. Either will be a toss up in the result

 

[Jstpssng]

Don't let them get away with it. Laws vary from state to state to province, but here the insurance company of the car which went through the fence would pay, then go after the at fault driver.
Or at least that's what happened when a friend was on the front of a 4 car chain reaction crash. The driver behind him paid, the insurer of the second car back paid my friend and that if the car in back of him; while the insurer for the guy who initially caused it had to pay full damage to the car he hit.
I dont know how it works in a no fault state. All that I know is my GL insurance more than tripled when they found out I was working in New York.

 

[paulsharvey]

My understanding, is, the vehicle to cause the damage would be at fault, regardless of who started the chain. IE, someone rear ends you, you hit car in front of you, your at fault for car 3's damage.

 

[CADplans]

I was gonna mention "no fault"
My SIL lived in Florida in the mid-late 1970's,,
She talked a LOT about how FL was a NO-FAULT insurance state.
No matter what the accident, your own insurance paid,, PERIOD.
She talked about it a lot,, supposedly it was a good thing.

I wonder if that is still the method of insurance in FL,,
the answer from the insurance company sure sounds like it,,

 

[paulsharvey]

Well, I know recently, unless there is a ticket issued, then your responsible for your vehicle. They don't often investigate much, and it's he said she said, and both parts insurance are responsible.

About 2 months ago, I was stopped, 3 cars back, at a red light, truck bumps me (I mean bump, not Hit) me from behind, but its a company vehicle, so regardless of damage or not, need police report. Guy who bumped me wanted to make a big deal about no damage, and he wasn't staying. I photo'd his license plate, and told him, if he leaves I'm reporting as a hit and run. Cop (PSA) shows up and basically just enforces exchange of info. Looking at the police report, after I left; My VIN and DL# are in driver 1 and driver 2 info slot, but his name under driver 2...

 

[Jstpssng]

^^^^
A woman at a local convenience store had her parked pickup run into while she was working, totaling the vehicle. It was a Canadian trucker that hit her and the cop messed up the paperwork; wrong VIN, or some dumb thing. Once he crossed the border there was nothing they could do, and she didn't have collision insurance.

 

[two_bit_score]

My understanding, is, the vehicle to cause the damage would be at fault, regardless of who started the chain. IE, someone rear ends you, you hit car in front of you, your at fault for car 3's damage.

Basically backwards.

The party who started the ball rolling by committing the first tort is the one who is primarily 'liable' for resulting damages. There can be, of course, subsuquent intervening causes of damages down the line for which the original tortfeasor is not fully liable.

 

[paulsharvey]

Basically backwards.

The party who started the ball rolling by committing the first tort is the one who is primarily 'liable' for resulting damages. There can be, of course, subsuquent intervening causes of damages down the line for which the original tortfeasor is not fully liable.

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.

 

[paulsharvey]

On the no-fault; I belive (once again, sure could be wrong); each vehicles insurance is responsible for the injury of its occupants; but a ticketed, at fault accident, vehicle damage would be on the ticketed party.

They don't do much for accident investigation anymore; because, at least around here; unless it is Very obvious one party is 100% wrong, and other is 100% right, it's basically seen as a civil problem.

 

[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.