If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-05-05, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote: Is this really the way it works? I could've sworn we (Colorado) recently switched to no-fault, but I've been hit twice since I got my car last year, and both times the other guy's insurance company paid for the damages. Maybe there was a "changeover" period before it actually took effect? SFAIK, Annie's description is the way it's SUPPOSED to work. (Although there may be differences in details, in the various states that have it.) Google knows all: http://www.dora.state.co.us/dora_pages/faq.htm Quote:
even if we were, the at-fault person would still have to pay property damages. -- monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
tanada wrote:
OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him claimed that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she hit Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is still considered totally at fault for the accident. Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now. Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance system that will reward an illegal driver. It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver of the van was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have been speeding, and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because she did not cause the collision. Try to be thankful that nobody died. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
223rem wrote:
tanada wrote: OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him claimed that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she hit Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is still considered totally at fault for the accident. Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now. Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance system that will reward an illegal driver. It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver of the van was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have been speeding, and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because she did not cause the collision. Try to be thankful that nobody died. Were you there? How do you know the driver of the van was at fault? Just because the cop said so? He wasn't there, either! You really have no right to jump on Pam in this manner. You don't know her or her family. You're the idiot who wants to write on his cat with a permanent marker. Obviously not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Jill |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
223rem wrote:
tanada wrote: OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him claimed that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she hit Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is still considered totally at fault for the accident. Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now. Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance system that will reward an illegal driver. It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver of the van was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have been speeding, and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because she did not cause the collision. Try to be thankful that nobody died. Actaully, had she not been speeding, she might have been able to stop. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2005-05-04, pmendhall penned: "tanada" wrote in message hlink.net... We thought we had full coverage, but geico says not. What does your policy or last statement say? You will probably have a printed copy somewhere. Seems like maybe you have a claims adjuster who is trying to avoid work, avoid payment or both. Even if you don't have a printed copy, the ins. companies I've used allow you to view your policy online. Geico sent us a statement dated Friday (April 29th, the date of the accident) that states that we're not covered, but supposedly our lien holder is. We called the bank and turned them loose into the mess. I'm at the sit back and watch the floor show stage. Pam S. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
223rem wrote:
It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver of the van was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have been speeding, and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because she did not cause the collision. Try to be thankful that nobody died. First of all, I am thankful that no one died. Second, the anger and frustration is normal after an accident. Yes, Mike is at fault. We've never denied that. However, the insurance company agrees with us that the woman had to have been driving at excess speed. However, there is no way, according to GEICO that we can prove it. So Mike takes the ticket and the hit. Pam S. emotionally drained right now. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"tanada" wrote in message
ink.net... Monique Y. Mudama wrote: On 2005-05-04, pmendhall penned: "tanada" wrote in message thlink.net... We thought we had full coverage, but geico says not. What does your policy or last statement say? You will probably have a printed copy somewhere. Seems like maybe you have a claims adjuster who is trying to avoid work, avoid payment or both. Even if you don't have a printed copy, the ins. companies I've used allow you to view your policy online. Geico sent us a statement dated Friday (April 29th, the date of the accident) that states that we're not covered, but supposedly our lien holder is. We called the bank and turned them loose into the mess. I'm at the sit back and watch the floor show stage. Pam S. Were you still paying on the van? In that case I would say you would *have* to have had comprehensive - your lien holder would have insisted on it. When we had another insurance and decided to switch to progressive, the other insurance notified the bank when our payment for renewal was *two days* overdue (thankfully we had already notified the bank, otherwise they would have purchased comprehensive insurance *for* us and added the (outrageously high) payments to our car note). Hugs, CatNipped |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"tanada" wrote in message
ink.net... 223rem wrote: It would help if you'd stopped being unreasonably angry. The driver of the van was obviously at fault; the driver of the sedan may have been speeding, and driving on a suspended license, but that's not relevant, because she did not cause the collision. Try to be thankful that nobody died. First of all, I am thankful that no one died. Second, the anger and frustration is normal after an accident. Yes, Mike is at fault. We've never denied that. However, the insurance company agrees with us that the woman had to have been driving at excess speed. However, there is no way, according to GEICO that we can prove it. So Mike takes the ticket and the hit. Pam S. emotionally drained right now. Well, first of all, *nobody* is at fault if it truly *is* an accident - it's not like Mike said, 'Hmmm, I think I'll purposely drive right into the path of this speeding vehicle!". However, if I were the police officer in charge of the accident investigation, I would have to take a hard look at *why* someone was driving around without a license - it would seem like there is a pattern of *some* sort of reckless behavior there (either too many traffic violations or failing to buy the proper insurance) if her license was suspended. Even if you have the "right of way", speeding can negate your "right" by causing the other person to misjudge the time it would take to clear your path. [It's a shame it was raining - there probably wouldn't be any skid marks to measure to determine how fast she was going. However, speed limits are set for dry, lighted conditions - if it were raining she should have been going *slower* than the posted speed limit!] Hugs, CatNipped |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Lots of purrs, best wishes and hugs,
-- Polonca & Soncek "tanada" wrote in message ink.net... OK, got the police report today. Mike was given a ticket for $10 and $100 court costs for "Failure to Yield." The woman who hit him claimed that she was only doing 45 mph and had hit the brakes before she hit Mike. I'll Post an album of the damages to both vehicles later. BTW she was cited for driving while her license was revoked. Mike is still considered totally at fault for the accident. Geico is refusing to pay us anything for the van. They are going to replace this woman's car. I feel so frustrated and angry right now. Please help me get over my anger with this woman and the insurance system that will reward an illegal driver. Even though the woman was driving with a revoked license, the woman was judged to be not at fault. I want to know what she did to lose her license. The damage to both her Lincoln Town Car and the van is horrendous. I don't think that she could have been doing only 45 in a 45 at the time of impact. It is a long straight stretch of road. There is now way that she couldn't have seen Mike and that big white van. Yes, it was raining, but not heavily. So that shouldn't be an excuse for her. Again, Please help me get over my anger with this. I upset Rob and Jim by calling her what I think of her, and I don't usually use that kind of language. And don't ask me about the VA and their treatment of Rob lately. Pam S. sill living a nightmare. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"tanada" wrote in message
ink.net... Geico sent us a statement dated Friday (April 29th, the date of the accident) that states that we're not covered, but supposedly our lien holder is. We called the bank and turned them loose into the mess. I'm at the sit back and watch the floor show stage. If you were paying the premiums, how is it that you are not covered? We won't even get into how the lien hold is covered but you're not. I think I would let the bank fight this one too. Let us know how it goes. Weird. Not going to buy Geico after this mess. Not that we were going to switch from State Farm. Diane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|