Am I done for?

[hepzibah12]

My 2021 Mazda cx5 was parked and crashed into by a driver who apparently was drunk driving all while his pregnant gf was in the car. I ended up finding out that the insurance I signed up for didn't inform me it didn't come with collision coverage so I'm stuck with a messed up vehicle that can't drive waiting for the at fault drivers to payout.
His insurance Kemper is waiting for the other car involved to respond to them and its been since June. Would they end up not wanting to pay for my repairs and reimbursement of rentals I have been having to get?

 

[davelew86]

@hepzibah12 You've got a problem since you didn't buy Collision coverage. Unfortunately, you're going to have to learn from an expensive mistake.

It sounds like there were 3 cars involved - yours, the drunk's and someone else. That definitely complicates things, and this could leave you with only a partial amount to fix your car. You didn't say where this happened, but if it's in NJ (for instance) the minimum limit for Property Damage required by the state is only $5k, which means that you and the other not-at-fault driver split that amount on a prorated basis based on the cost to fix your cars. If his was worse than yours, you'll get less.

Kemper isn't in the wrong here if they're waiting on the other vehicle. They can't just pay you all the limits - that would be grossly unfair.

My advice is to ask the Kemper adjuster if there is any issue with the limits on the drunk's coverage. They may have already told you that, but it can't hurt to check. If there are issues, then you can sue the drunk (and the owner of the car if that's different than the drunk) and hope that you can collect from them over and above what Kemper will eventually pay you. At the end of the day, that's probably the only hope you'll be made whole if there is a limits issue.

Sorry that this isn't an easy fix for you, but maybe you'll get lucky here.

 

[resjudicata]

@hepzibah12 This doesn’t make sense - you have to have collision. But you don’t have to have comprehensive.

And it doesn’t matter anyways because he’s at fault and it comes from his insurance not yours. Especially if he was drunk driving.

You can sue over this as well

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata Since when do you "have to have" Collision coverage? It has always been an optional coverage, and there's no state that requires it. Do you mean Liability coverage? That's what every state requires.

The rest of your post is just additional misunderstandings of how the insurance claims process works. You're right that the OP can sue, at least, and I'll concede that she can probably win. Collecting remains something entirely different, especially since there's apparently a third car involved.

 

[resjudicata]

@davelew86 I’m from Canada. You must be from somewhere else where you don’t have to have that coverage

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata I'm from the US. But I know Canadian coverage well enough to know that you're still wrong about Collision coverage. It's an optional coverage in all provinces. The only mandatory coverage in Ontario - for instance - is third party direct compensation, which is effectively the same as Liability coverage in the US.

I'm not sure that you really understand insurance well enough to be advising someone else about it. Especially when Kemper has not provided Auto insurance in Canada for over 20 years, which should be a clue that your Canadian knowledge might not be relevant.

 

[resjudicata]

@davelew86 You obviously don’t. Ontario is one province out of Canada

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata Yes, I know. I picked a random one. Which one equates liability coverage with collision exactly?

You’ve provided no evidence that your opinion is right. Because it isn’t. And that’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[resjudicata]

@davelew86 Unless your car is old and you own it outright - that’s the only way you can get away with not having collision.

If you make payments or lease your car - you HAVE to have collision.

Look it up on Google if you don’t believe me

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata You said “you have to have collision”. It’s an optional coverage. It is entirely legal in Canada to not buy it. Google it.

You should stop now before you go embarrass yourself more. You’re ridiculously wrong.

 

[resjudicata]

@davelew86 It’s not an option if you don’t own your car right out.

Most ppl are financing their cars or leasing them.

Sure if you own a old piece of shit you can have no collision but would you? Probably not.

I don’t know a single Canadian that doesn’t have collision on their vehicle if their driving their vehicle daily. It would be fucking stupid.

Give your head a shake and stop being an asshole for no reason.

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata Jesus Christ, you keep digging this hole deeper, don't you? Are you aiming for the core?

You said that collision is required. It's not. It may be required by a lease or a finance contract, but plenty of people - including Canadians - mess that up, either by mistake or on purpose to save money.

There is no provincial government that requires the coverage. Stop pretending that you know something when you don't. Whether or not you know anyone that doesn't have the coverage is absolutely irrelevant - I'm sure you haven't bothered to ask, and even then your anecdote would just be a single data point.

You don't know what you're talking about. You had the opportunity to walk back your misstatement but have doubled down for some reason. No one legally has to have Collision coverage. Period. Including all parts of Canada. There are lots of reasons why you wouldn't have it and why it's an excellent idea to decline the coverage - I can think of about a dozen off the top of my head.

If anyone here is an asshole it's you for insisting that you're right even when confronted with all sorts of reasons why you're wrong. You can't accept that you've given bad advice - you gave it for the wrong country, and the advice you gave was terrible from start to finish. Since you're being such an ass now, I'll just go ahead reply to that original message and dissect it for you to show you how wrong you are.

 

[ifitry]

@resjudicata indeed

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata Here's what happens when an expert tells you you're wrong and you keep doubling down on it. This is to demonstrate all the mistakes you made in your advice, point by point. Congrats on being 1 for 5.

This doesn’t make sense - you have to have collision.

As discussed, there are no laws in Canada - or the US, where the OP is - requiring Collision coverage, so this makes perfect sense. The OP did not buy the coverage that would respond to this kind of accident. That is a perfectly legal decision as far as law enforcement goes. It may or may not be an expensive lesson to learn, but it is irrelevant to your point. There is no law in any US state or any Canadian province that requires anyone to buy Collision coverage.

But you don’t have to have comprehensive.

While technically correct, this is irrelevant since this is a Collision claim. You might as well have pointed out that they don't have to have roadside assistance.

And it doesn’t matter anyways because he’s at fault and it comes from his insurance not yours.

The OP already knows this and it has nothing to do with any actual question. There are 3 vehicles involved. Given that this is the US, there is a high likelihood that there will not be enough Property Damage limits carried by the at-fault driver to pay for both the OP's car and the other damaged car. Kemper has every right to wait on the other car's cost of repair so that they can determine whether or not there are adequate limits to pay both. Given that Kemper is a nonstandard insurer for higher risk drivers, chances are that the other driver only has the statutorily required limits, which range from $5k to $15k for PD. So there's a very good chance that the OP will not be made whole.

Especially if he was drunk driving.

There's no "especially" about the other driver being drunk in the US. All that matters is that he was at fault. Period. End of story. While being drunk may have contributed to the accident, it does not shift any blame. The OP could have been completely hammered and in his parked car while the other driver was completely sober, and it wouldn't change the fault determination one bit. While the criminal court cares very much about the driver's sobriety (as they should), the civil court where this property damage claim will be determined won't factor that in. The drunk hit the OP's car along with the other - being drunk won't change the outcome of a civil trial one bit with the facts in front of us.

You can sue over this as well

Congrats on finally having one right. It's only partially right, but I'll give you the full credit. The reason it's only partially right is that a judge is going to want to know about insurance, and when Kemper says that they're waiting on the other vehicle, the judge is going to have to take that into consideration as well. If the third driver isn't a party to this suit, the judge will likely set the case aside until that driver/their insurer makes their claim to the drunk's coverage. Once that is known and Kemper can figure out how much they're going to pay to whom, the judge can then determine how much the drunk owes the OP on top of that amount, if any.

I hope that you take this as a chance to educate yourself on how insurance claims actually work, especially since you're giving advice in a country that you don't live in and probably don't have any direct experience with.

 

[resjudicata]

@davelew86 Feel good?

I never once said I was an expert. You on the other hand seem to be tho.

Good job bro feel better about yourself now?

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata Oh, I see. You're just a troll that wants to give bad advice, double down when called out and then pretend that you're the victim.

Got it.

Why don't you go back to giving advice on something like moose or how bad Timmy's has gotten and let the people that can actually help people in need do their thing?

 

[resjudicata]

@davelew86 The only troll here is here is you. You’re belligerent for no reason. You have no communication skills whatsoever because you can’t control your emotions.

I’ve never once said I was an expert, but it appears you are though- even though you don’t even live in Canada but good job. Hope you feel better being a keyboard warrior.

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata I'm the belligerent one because you can't admit that you're wrong. You're trying to make this about me instead of the facts and the abysmal advice go gave in response to them. You don't have any response other than to make personal attacks on me.

Before you get yourself in trouble and make yourself look even more stupid than you have, maybe you should take an internet break. You're clearly getting hysterical about being told that you're wrong and can't seem to handle that.

 

[resjudicata]

@davelew86 Do you not see the paragraphs your sending me for no reason? You don’t even live in our country yet somehow you know how our whole insurance system works?

I honestly find it funny at this point. Only thing I’m doing over here is laughing. It’s hilarious how upset you are over this lol it’s just insurance dude and it’s just Reddit. Calm down.

 

[davelew86]

@resjudicata I understand your insurance scheme better than you to the point that I knew that the insurance company the OP mentioned withdrew from your country years ago.

You didn't know that or have the first clue about how your own insurance works. So, yes, I know how Canadian insurance works and which provinces differ from the others and how.

It's called an education. Maybe check into that.

I've been "calling you down" because you are wrong and won't accept it. We can be done now though. Thankfully I have the power to end this discussion.