Just got hit by a drunk driver in Beverly Hills.

[fishguy]

There should be NO SYMPATHY for someone who CHOOSES to drive drunk.
if she looses everything, then T.S.
I would like it if the(her) insurance policy was voided under these circumstances in that the insurance pays out the damages to the victim, but then takes the damn drunk to court and siezes all their lifes assets, or garnishes wages for a lifetime to pay back what the ins. company pays out.
the punishements for DUI are still not severe enough in the country.
I am sick and tired of drunks behind the wheel. its a choice to do so(drive drunk), and letting them off easy is just plain wrong. driving is a privelige, and a big responsibility, not a given right when you turn 16.
as mentioned above, you can take the bus, ride a bike or walk. they are alternatives, but much less convient ones, but they are still alternatives.
No sympathy for her, but it is a good idea to have adaquite coverage for what you own.
I was injured about 10 years ago badly in a wreck, not my fault, sitting at a red light in traffic and rear ended by an old idiot on meds.
The max of both policies was quickly reached in (my)med bills. I have since decided I want to pay for more coverage in the future, and NOT rely on others to cover me.
(paying for)insurance sucks, until you need it.

[biobanker]

I believe that the law of being able to choose your coverage (or have very low coverage) is crazy, but it is what it is. After thinking about this more, if you live in a place where this is the case, if you don't have supplemental insurance to protect yourself, by default, you're "accepting" the risk.

Hard to change the system and in the end, I bet it is efficient so the supplemental insurance is probably not that much different than everyone being forced, as I am, to shift some of your coverage to those who own more valuable cars (or to those who are willing to pay).

EDIT: and yes, no sympathy for drunk drivers.

[UKphil]

Originally Posted by babak

Posts edited to remove personal attacks, I'm asking you all to take a step back and a deep breath. Also, please take time to re-read your own posts, kind of like a little self editing and try to bring this thread back on track.

I'm a little surprised at the emotion generated here. Perhaps it's because I am an "outsider" and there are cultural issues I'm missing.

A lot of people seem to be directing their anger at people - rather than the system. People are underinsured because the system allows them to be. In the UK (as I've said) your insurance covers the full cost of damage to the third party. But - this isn't perfect. It means insurance is (roughly) twice as much as over here. I would bet that - even if you loaded your own premiums to give you maximum protection against any circumstance - you will still pay much less than in the UK. So the "system" actually works in your favo(u)r as an expensive car owner.

In the UK a lot more people (as a proportion) just can't afford to own a car. Many others drive without any insurance at all (which is illegal but difficult to police). Here, car ownership seems to be regarded as a "right" and the system is geared towards helping people stay on the road.

So the system actually works pretty well in financial terms - and the insurance companies must be happy enough - even though they have to chase the underinsured. If they weren't happy I'm sure the system would be changed.

So that leaves the "moral" issue. People abuse the system and "get away" with paying less than they should for insurance.
I suspect that those of you who are most upset by these "moral degenerates" are also most vocal against "government interference". This means that you can't agree to some kind of Government enforcement of third party insurance (as in the UK).

So - by supporting "freedom" (which is fine) you have to accept that people will abuse the system (it's what people do). Alternatively - campaign for more strict insurance conditions.

All of this is completely separate from the "drunk driving" issue - which I would imagine there's close to a consensus condemning the practise - and quite right too.

[fishguy]

Originally Posted by UKphil

I'm a little surprised at the emotion generated here. Perhaps it's because I am an "outsider" and there are cultural issues I'm missing.

Phil,
I will try to help you out on this, and its only my point of view about it so...........
Basically its all part of the pussifaction of america, and how people are feeling they are entitled to things w/o earning them. they feel that its not their fault that they are poor, or make less than someone else. its always someone elses fault, many of this type seem to blame george bush for their problems.
I have a freind who does this, but i guess its bushs' fault as well that she chose to be a park ranger also(they dont make much $).
its truely pathetic that there are so many here in america that feel that people who are sucsessful should be "punished" for their sucsess by having to pay huge taxes, and thus distribute their wealth(and sucsess) to those who choose not to work, or get a college degree.
many here in america are lazy and weak when it comes to taking care of themselves, and being responsible for their own sucsess or failure.
"its not my fault"_________________.
personally, i feel its good to help others who are less fortunate, but not by having a government steal my earnings by way of taxation to help those who chose not to take care of themselves for long periods of time, or choose to be w/o proper insurance coverage. i would prefer to do this on my own through charity (of my choice).
I have seen people, an x-girlfreinds sister comes to mind who said she "would not go to work for less than $10 /hr." thats fine, but she has no education, no skills, so she felt that she was justified to just stay on wlefare rather than work. I think if she got hungry enough, she would have got off her lazy entitled ass and got a job to feed herself.
I resent that type of attitude.
I also read similair attitude in this thread about how people feel entitled to things.
living in LA is a choice, it has its costs, if others drive expensive cars in that area, then you darned well better choose to carry enough insurance to cover something that might happen in your area where you CHOOSE to live.
we all make choices in life, it what life is all about, and choosing to not go to school, or choosing a line of work that doesnt pay well has consequences.
the work ethic in this country has suffered greatly with this attitude of entitlement.
I think its good to help people who truely cannot help themselves, but to continutally support those who choose not to help themselves is not really helping anyone in the long run.
I strongly believe in the idea of "give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."
too many people, IMO, just want to be given a fish from someone lelses sucsess and hard work, rather than go fishing for themself.
I always find it interesting when i see someone with a sign that says will work for food, and then there is a place right there with a help wanted sign posted........................Its because they are really just asking for handouts.
there is more Phil, but i will let others chime in, and those people will have varied viewpoints.
I notice frequently its people saying this _____________ should be the rule for the society,.......... for you, but not for me and my family. we have the $ to circumvent that law, and send their kids to private schools for example.
or the crowd who screams about glabol warming, and how we all should drive small cars or take public transportation, while they fly off in their private jet, and say these things from a hilltop where their huge house is located.
nad now for some , while i go off to work and earn my keep today.

[pla_time]

Originally Posted by fishguy

There should be NO SYMPATHY for someone who CHOOSES to drive drunk.
if she looses everything, then T.S.
I would like it if the(her) insurance policy was voided under these circumstances in that the insurance pays out the damages to the victim, but then takes the damn drunk to court and siezes all their lifes assets, or garnishes wages for a lifetime to pay back what the ins. company pays out.
the punishements for DUI are still not severe enough in the country.

Interesting perspective. What if insurance companies extended this principle to everyone who is violating the law (e.g., speeders)? If you are going, say 10 mph over the limit, should they void your insurance policy too, if you have an 'accident'? Or is there something special about DUI that merits a different rule? Both are just as willful actions that are under the control of the driver.

[fishguy]

Originally Posted by pla_time

Interesting perspective. What if insurance companies extended this principle to everyone who is violating the law (e.g., speeders)? If you are going, say 10 mph over the limit, should they void your insurance policy too, if you have an 'accident'? Or is there something special about DUI that merits a different rule? Both are just as willful actions that are under the control of the driver.

yes special circumstance for DUI. the laws are not tough enough to disuade people from doing this, and IMO its tantamount to assault with a deadly weapon when driving DRUNK.
driving impaired is very different than speeding at 10 mph over the limit, but I also wouldnt mind seeing something like this for people who feel the need to go 198mph in their Esprit on public roads as was posted by a guy in this forum. speeding is one thing but flat out stupidity is another.
doing 2x the speed limit is classified as reckless driving in my state. they are setting limits that seem reasonable for different severitities of punishment. reckless= loss of license, and hello public bus stop bench.
driving drunk puts innocent poeple at risk for no good reason. its dangerous enough on the public roads when poeple are sober.

[Boondock Saint]

Originally Posted by fishguy

Phil,
I will try to help you out on this, and its only my point of view about it so...........
Basically its all part of the pussifaction of america, and how people are feeling they are entitled to things w/o earning them. they feel that its not their fault that they are poor, or make less than someone else. its always someone elses fault, many of this type seem to blame george bush for their problems.
I have a freind who does this, but i guess its bushs' fault as well that she chose to be a park ranger also(they dont make much $).
its truely pathetic that there are so many here in america that feel that people who are sucsessful should be "punished" for their sucsess by having to pay huge taxes, and thus distribute their wealth(and sucsess) to those who choose not to work, or get a college degree.
many here in america are lazy and weak when it comes to taking care of themselves, and being responsible for their own sucsess or failure.
"its not my fault"_________________.
personally, i feel its good to help others who are less fortunate, but not by having a government steal my earnings by way of taxation to help those who chose not to take care of themselves for long periods of time, or choose to be w/o proper insurance coverage. i would prefer to do this on my own through charity (of my choice).
I have seen people, an x-girlfreinds sister comes to mind who said she "would not go to work for less than $10 /hr." thats fine, but she has no education, no skills, so she felt that she was justified to just stay on wlefare rather than work. I think if she got hungry enough, she would have got off her lazy entitled ass and got a job to feed herself.
I resent that type of attitude.
I also read similair attitude in this thread about how people feel entitled to things.
living in LA is a choice, it has its costs, if others drive expensive cars in that area, then you darned well better choose to carry enough insurance to cover something that might happen in your area where you CHOOSE to live.
we all make choices in life, it what life is all about, and choosing to not go to school, or choosing a line of work that doesnt pay well has consequences.
the work ethic in this country has suffered greatly with this attitude of entitlement.
I think its good to help people who truely cannot help themselves, but to continutally support those who choose not to help themselves is not really helping anyone in the long run.
I strongly believe in the idea of "give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."
too many people, IMO, just want to be given a fish from someone lelses sucsess and hard work, rather than go fishing for themself.
I always find it interesting when i see someone with a sign that says will work for food, and then there is a place right there with a help wanted sign posted........................Its because they are really just asking for handouts.
there is more Phil, but i will let others chime in, and those people will have varied viewpoints.
I notice frequently its people saying this _____________ should be the rule for the society,.......... for you, but not for me and my family. we have the $ to circumvent that law, and send their kids to private schools for example.
or the crowd who screams about glabol warming, and how we all should drive small cars or take public transportation, while they fly off in their private jet, and say these things from a hilltop where their huge house is located.
nad now for some , while i go off to work and earn my keep today.

I completely agree with everything fishguy said (maybe we got off on the wrong foot fishguy ). The thing about this thread is that it opens up the Pandora's box of problems in America. One example is that some people in America care more about how our prisoners are treated in prison instead of their victims. It's all about taking personal responsibility for your life and your actions. My wife and I bust our butts making a living and try to do the right thing in this world and I expect the same from my neighbors and fellow citizens. Although their are exceptions in this world and their really are people that have fallen on hard times by no fault of their own, most people in hard times are just lazy and looking for a handout or a quick buck from the government, insurance companies, or people who drive "fancy" cars.

The sad thing about our great nation is that common courtesy is not so common anymore. From using your turn signal so that your fellow drivers know what the hell you're doing to having enough insurance coverage (or ANY insurance coverage for that matter) to letting someone into your lane in traffic. A lot of people just don't care about their fellow Americans. When it becomes more important to you to put 22" spinners on your car than have proper insurance coverage then you have the problem, not me.

My wife and I moved to California 7 years ago. I took a job making $8.00/hr. just to get into the field I wanted to be in. It was a lot less then I made before we moved but I took the job to pay the bills and now, with a lot of hard work, I make much more. I'm tired of people making excuses. Hard time paying the bills? Well don't have 3 or 4 kids. My wife and I have been together for 13 years and made a decision not to have kids until we knew we were ready for it and could give it a good life. It's called birth control and it does work. You have to work hard and make an effort to have a good life, it doesn't come free.

After being sued by one of these no insurance carrying a-holes after HE hit MY wife and was clearly at fault and looking for a payday I have little to no patience for this sort of thing or those types of people.

[mevistox5]

Originally Posted by pla_time

Interesting perspective. What if insurance companies extended this principle to everyone who is violating the law (e.g., speeders)? If you are going, say 10 mph over the limit, should they void your insurance policy too, if you have an 'accident'? Or is there something special about DUI that merits a different rule? Both are just as willful actions that are under the control of the driver.

I just checked my insurance papers:

The insurance does not cover if you're:
- Streetracing
- Driving it without the correct licence
- Disallowed driver
- Driving under influence (of alcohol, or other intoxicating substance)
- Frostdamage


I think there is a distinct difference between a criminal offence or a law offence (like speeding).

Standard total coverage in case of an event is: 2,268,901.08 Euro's. So I should be safe hitting a Bugatti Veyron.......

BTW I whole heartly agree with Fishguy on the DUI. You make you're own choices here.And the old saying apllies here: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

[Flash G]

Here's an update after one month:

Car will be repaired. (Insurance company will not total the car because there is no frame/chassis/suspension or engine damage.)

I have faith that the car will be returned to the condition it was in before the accident. (All of the parts are "bolt-on" parts, so no repairing of items needed.)

Sure, I would rather just get a new car - but since the woman who caused the accident doesn't have sufficient insurance, I'm at the mercy of my insurance company. The damage estimate doesn't come near the 75%-80% needed to "total" the car. (The sticker on the car was $64k and the repairs are about a third of that.)

The shop is replacing the clam, doors, A/C condenser, radiator, headlamps, trim pieces, windshield, 2 tires, oil coolers and crash box.

I will be going after the "diminished value" of the car.



.

[John]

There are so many thoughts and feelings I'd like to share in this thread, but in the end it won't do us any good. Fact is that the state will get it's "fair share" of her long before you will - which is an unfortunate product of how the justice system works. The state will force her to pay off her fine and punishment long before you see any benefit (if ever).

Best of wishes on the repair - it'll be a lengthy departure from your car. Like you, I just wish for a new car... but good things come to those who are patient - right? :/

J, who still has a few weeks before he sees his car that was hit in June...

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by Flash G

[b]
I will be going after the "diminished value" of the car.

Good luck with that. It will more than likely be a huge PITA, unless you are willing to merely accept what they determine to be the diminished value (which is very likely to be much less than you think it will be). It's a difficult issue to resolve.

[John]

Originally Posted by Rob T

Good luck with that. It will more than likely be a huge PITA, unless you are willing to merely accept what they determine to be the diminished value (which is very likely to be much less than you think it will be). It's a difficult issue to resolve.

Why do you say this? I will be going after the same thing... another basic principle is the time you are without the car. I've been without my car for over 4 months. Figure normal payments of the car and depreciation for that period at the least... To give a idea, I financed only 20K of this car over 36 months at ~$650/month - so that's $2600 just for 4 months of paying for a car I haven't gotten to drive (yet it's been longer than that).

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by John

Why do you say this? I will be going after the same thing... another basic principle is the time you are without the car. I've been without my car for over 4 months. Figure normal payments of the car and depreciation for that period at the least... To give a idea, I financed only 20K of this car over 36 months at ~$650/month - so that's $2600 just for 4 months of paying for a car I haven't gotten to drive (yet it's been longer than that).

What you are talking about isn't diminished value. That is "loss of use".

Diminished value has more to do with the lower value of the car (which will be seen when you go to sell it and the accident shows up on a Carfax report etc) due to the accident.

The loss of use you discuss above is quite a bit easier to calculate than diminished value.

[Flash G]

Originally Posted by Rob T

What you are talking about isn't diminished value. That is "loss of use".

Diminished value has more to do with the lower value of the car (which will be seen when you go to sell it and the accident shows up on a Carfax report etc) due to the accident.

The loss of use you discuss above is quite a bit easier to calculate than diminished value.

I'm more concerned with "diminished value". I think "loss of use" would be tougher since according to my insurance policy, I only use the car for 5,000 miles a year and I have four cars.



.

[John]

Originally Posted by Rob T

What you are talking about isn't diminished value. That is "loss of use".

Diminished value has more to do with the lower value of the car (which will be seen when you go to sell it and the accident shows up on a Carfax report etc) due to the accident.

The loss of use you discuss above is quite a bit easier to calculate than diminished value.

Concur, but it's still a factor into my equation the way I see it. That and considering how much lower these cars are going for on the used market between May and now...

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by Flash G

I'm more concerned with "diminished value". I think "loss of use" would be tougher since according to my insurance policy, I only use the car for 5,000 miles a year and I have four cars.



.

Exactly.

I will be curious to see what you get for diminished value and how it is calculated.

[pla_time]

Originally Posted by Rob T

Exactly.

I will be curious to see what you get for diminished value and how it is calculated.

It isn't likely to be cheap to get this done, however I had a good experience with these folks last year, when somebody rear-ended my Porsche:

http://www.collisionclaims.com/about.html

Basically, you start with whatever the insurance company offers you for diminished value (in my case, it was a check for a few hundred bucks). Then, you call these folks [do not cash the check from the insurance company]. After the car has been repaired, they come out after and do a full estimate of the 'diminished value.' The provide you with a bunch of documentation that you then send to the insurance company. If you get a reasonable offer from the insurance company, then you are done. [That was where I ended the process]. If not, then these folks can help you go further (which means probably going to court.)

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by pla_time

It isn't likely to be cheap to get this done, however I had a good experience with these folks last year, when somebody rear-ended my Porsche:

http://www.collisionclaims.com/about.html

Basically, you start with whatever the insurance company offers you for diminished value (in my case, it was a check for a few hundred bucks). Then, you call these folks [do not cash the check from the insurance company]. After the car has been repaired, they come out after and do a full estimate of the 'diminished value.' The provide you with a bunch of documentation that you then send to the insurance company. If you get a reasonable offer from the insurance company, then you are done. [That was where I ended the process]. If not, then these folks can help you go further (which means probably going to court.)

This really is the only other way to do it if you aren't going to accept what the insurance company offers for diminished value. They can testify as "expert witnesses" on the issue of diminished value. Unfortunately, "Experts" are never cheap.

[Brent Bauman]

is it fixed yet?

[Flash G]

Originally Posted by Brent Bauman

is it fixed yet?

Not yet. Waiting on parts.

I'll post pics when it's done.



.