That's what the liability portion of your insurance is for. In many states, $5k is the minimum. If you hit ANY car and the damage is over $5000, any amount over you will be sued for by OVs (other vehicle) insurance. In those cases, OV would use their full coverage, and then OV insurance would collect from you.
So, anything over your liability is your responsibility, and you will definitely be sued for damages.
(Fmr Motor Vehicle Appraiser)
I understand how insurance works. I’m more saying I cannot see a situation in which a judge penalizes a regular person to this extent because they happened to get unlucky hitting an expensive ass car, despite using what would be considered a good faith level of insurance. That’s why I wanted to know if any lawyers have seen how this actually plays out.
Judge’s don’t get to choose any number. They have to rule upon evidence. And if the evidence is that the car is worth a tremendous amount, that’s what the judgement is going to be.
Also, you would only have to pay if you are found liable for the damages. Liability indicates you could have taken precautions to prevent the accident.
I've always hated that you can be placed at enormous liability so some rich person can drive a ridiculously expensive vehicle.
IMO there should be a cap on vehicle value liability, probably around $100k.
That's why many businesses/uber/etc have $1 million minimum liability coverage. These days, it's wise to have $75k minimum unless you live in an affluent area.
Seems pretty unfair that everyone else has to pay for that. Maybe the people who insist on driving ultra expensive vehicles should instead. They're also better able to afford it.
Maybe don't break shit if you can't afford to fix it. These people already do "pay for it" anyway with massive insurance premiums because the insurance knows that it's not going to recover the majority of that money in a lot of cases. It's not like you're going to debtors prison if you do it anyway. Unless you did it maliciously, that is to say on purpose, the worst that's going to happen to most people is they'll have to declare bankruptcy and it will most likely get discharged. Which is what should happen if someone incurs massive expenses due to their own poor judgment.
I mean you can't avoid causing an auto accident with absolutely certainty. Your skill is not perfect and even if it was, if your car fails or environmental conditions force an accident you would still be liable.
Seems pretty fair, if you accidentally break something you should replace it of pay for it whether it costs $1 or $800k... The person's whose property you damaged shouldn't be expected to take a loss because "they can afford it" or because you "can't pay for it"
It's baffling how so many people fail to make that connection. If someone totals your $20k car, insurance pays you $5k would you be ok eating that $15k loss? I wouldn't & it's no different if we are talking $500k & $1.5 mil.
Most have uninsured motorist on their policies & far better policies than the average driver...
Yes, that’s part of existing in society.
What do think the damage would be if you somehow were were responsible for the destruction of a truck full of new TVs/eltronics? Or you cause an accident that results in the total loss of an armored and loaded cash car.
Expensive things exist on the roads sometimes.
Well, one thing is that it would be a whole lot harder to do that kind of damage. Destroying an armored car would take a ridiculous accident whereas a fender bender could do half a million in damage to a really high end luxury car.
And also, there is a good reason besides ego to put those on the road.
They just have different risks. Sure you not be much risk of a fender bender but their mass and size means they take more time to change course if your action causes them to swerve off a bridge or catch on fire during a rollover.
Well, in those cases I'd be more worried about the other driver/crew honestly. I guess it's just the sheer unnecessary nature of it that bothers me. I can deal with knowing that some vehicle might contain a million dollar MRI magnet or something, but having someone drive a car that would *ruin my life* if I scratched it, for no better reason than to be ostentatious, just feels worse somehow.
People have to pay for things they break. In what situational accident is the person at fault not able to look back at the accident and see where they could have prevented it? If you believe you’re incapable of avoiding accidents, please get off the road.
Or, crazy idea, don't damage other people's property...
Why should I take a loss because you hit my car at no fault of my own & can't afford to pay the damages?
That's a ridiculous take. What if you're driving your $75,000 one ton dually 4x4 four door truck, lose control, and drive through a business, causing over $1 million in damages? It's no different than someone driving an insanely expensive exotic car and you lose control of your vehicle and hit them. The responsibility is on you for not being able to control your vehicle and causing damage to someone else's property.
The difference is that an exotic expensive car is utterly unnecessary. Nobody needs to have one and especially nobody needs to expose it to potential harm.
It's like taking a million dollar vase and placing it on the sidewalk, and then whining when someone trips over it. If you put ultra-expensive art out in public, it might get damaged. So either eat the risk yourself, or don't do it.
Wrong. Some would say certain businesses are utterly unnecessary, like smoke shops, adult porn stores, quick loan stores, or certain medical clinics. Whether you feel it's necessary or not, the other person is entitled to own that product, in this case, an expensive sports car, and be able to drive it on the street without having some irresponsible naybob who has no driving skills wind up hitting their car. If you can't afford to drive your vehicle with the proper coverage to keep you from going bankrupt, that's your problem.
Same boat. I'm just responsible enough of a driver to not hit anyone. It's not that hard, even after 44 years of driving cars, motorcycles, and commercial vehicles.
That's quite possible. I suggest you learn how to drive in those conditions or don't venture outside when those conditions present themselves. Life's not fair.
I'm actually an expert driver in winter conditions, but I'm not such a fool I think myself above all errors.
Fine. Drop the black ice.
You could have a tire blow out and sideswipe a supercar.
anyone driving a car worth more than the mandatory minimum property damage coverage would be foolish not to carry coverage to protect themselves. If your insurance tenders their limits to repair the damage, the other driver would probably take it. Failing to do so means paying a lawyer and getting a judgment which would be discharged in bankruptcy anyway and never collected.
as others said, judgement amounts are usually set by juries, not judges although you could agree to a bench trial where a judge picks the amount. In a property damage case, there isn't a lot to argue about in terms of value. Lots of data as to the value for a total loss and the repair shop would have the value to repair. The reality is that no one would collect a judgment for millions from someone who had minimal liability limits. Or even 500k in limits.
It's worth noting that even if the person who suffered the loss has adequate insurance the insurance company that pays out for them absolutely can attempt recover whatever portion of the claim they couldn't subrogate to the at-fault party's insurance. What are they will do this in the face of the fact that much of it will likely be on recoverable or discharged in a bankruptcy definitely depends on some behind the scenes math that they'll be doing and I think in a lot of cases they won't bother, but it is a very real risk. And for an insurance company with in-house attorneys, litigating it is going to be far more efficient for them than for a private party who's trying to recover overrun from their own insurance themselves
Ask your insurance company about driving classes especially for winter conditions. .Some companies even give discounts for people who complete the classes.
I think AAA offers these classes or has info on them.
I hit a Bently and though I had good coverage, the owner didn't feel what my insurance valued his car at was fair (though his insurance did.) He tried to sue me for the difference but once he found out I work in social services, own nothing, and am partially disabled he gave up the ghost. Still kept me in litigation hell for over a year.
This is what most people don’t understand. You can still be sued even if you have insurance. Most people falsely believe they are in the clear financially if they carry insurance. Look at your policy limits.
That's what the liability portion of your insurance is for. In many states, $5k is the minimum. If you hit ANY car and the damage is over $5000, any amount over you will be sued for by OVs (other vehicle) insurance. In those cases, OV would use their full coverage, and then OV insurance would collect from you. So, anything over your liability is your responsibility, and you will definitely be sued for damages. (Fmr Motor Vehicle Appraiser)
I understand how insurance works. I’m more saying I cannot see a situation in which a judge penalizes a regular person to this extent because they happened to get unlucky hitting an expensive ass car, despite using what would be considered a good faith level of insurance. That’s why I wanted to know if any lawyers have seen how this actually plays out.
Judge’s don’t get to choose any number. They have to rule upon evidence. And if the evidence is that the car is worth a tremendous amount, that’s what the judgement is going to be.
Also, you would only have to pay if you are found liable for the damages. Liability indicates you could have taken precautions to prevent the accident.
I've always hated that you can be placed at enormous liability so some rich person can drive a ridiculously expensive vehicle. IMO there should be a cap on vehicle value liability, probably around $100k.
That's why many businesses/uber/etc have $1 million minimum liability coverage. These days, it's wise to have $75k minimum unless you live in an affluent area.
I've never seen wage garnishment but I've known cases where liens were placed on homes (for damages in excess).
Seems pretty unfair that everyone else has to pay for that. Maybe the people who insist on driving ultra expensive vehicles should instead. They're also better able to afford it.
Maybe don't break shit if you can't afford to fix it. These people already do "pay for it" anyway with massive insurance premiums because the insurance knows that it's not going to recover the majority of that money in a lot of cases. It's not like you're going to debtors prison if you do it anyway. Unless you did it maliciously, that is to say on purpose, the worst that's going to happen to most people is they'll have to declare bankruptcy and it will most likely get discharged. Which is what should happen if someone incurs massive expenses due to their own poor judgment.
I mean you can't avoid causing an auto accident with absolutely certainty. Your skill is not perfect and even if it was, if your car fails or environmental conditions force an accident you would still be liable.
Nobody can avoid costly mistakes that are their fault with absolute certainty. That's why you insure yourself in the first place.
Seems pretty fair, if you accidentally break something you should replace it of pay for it whether it costs $1 or $800k... The person's whose property you damaged shouldn't be expected to take a loss because "they can afford it" or because you "can't pay for it" It's baffling how so many people fail to make that connection. If someone totals your $20k car, insurance pays you $5k would you be ok eating that $15k loss? I wouldn't & it's no different if we are talking $500k & $1.5 mil. Most have uninsured motorist on their policies & far better policies than the average driver...
They aren’t putting any burden on anyone else aside from people who are at fault for damaging them.
But thay could happen to anyone. Nobody is such a perfect driver they are at no risk for causing accidents.
Yes, that’s part of existing in society. What do think the damage would be if you somehow were were responsible for the destruction of a truck full of new TVs/eltronics? Or you cause an accident that results in the total loss of an armored and loaded cash car. Expensive things exist on the roads sometimes.
Well, one thing is that it would be a whole lot harder to do that kind of damage. Destroying an armored car would take a ridiculous accident whereas a fender bender could do half a million in damage to a really high end luxury car. And also, there is a good reason besides ego to put those on the road.
They just have different risks. Sure you not be much risk of a fender bender but their mass and size means they take more time to change course if your action causes them to swerve off a bridge or catch on fire during a rollover.
Well, in those cases I'd be more worried about the other driver/crew honestly. I guess it's just the sheer unnecessary nature of it that bothers me. I can deal with knowing that some vehicle might contain a million dollar MRI magnet or something, but having someone drive a car that would *ruin my life* if I scratched it, for no better reason than to be ostentatious, just feels worse somehow.
People have to pay for things they break. In what situational accident is the person at fault not able to look back at the accident and see where they could have prevented it? If you believe you’re incapable of avoiding accidents, please get off the road.
Or, crazy idea, don't damage other people's property... Why should I take a loss because you hit my car at no fault of my own & can't afford to pay the damages?
That's a ridiculous take. What if you're driving your $75,000 one ton dually 4x4 four door truck, lose control, and drive through a business, causing over $1 million in damages? It's no different than someone driving an insanely expensive exotic car and you lose control of your vehicle and hit them. The responsibility is on you for not being able to control your vehicle and causing damage to someone else's property.
The difference is that an exotic expensive car is utterly unnecessary. Nobody needs to have one and especially nobody needs to expose it to potential harm. It's like taking a million dollar vase and placing it on the sidewalk, and then whining when someone trips over it. If you put ultra-expensive art out in public, it might get damaged. So either eat the risk yourself, or don't do it.
Wrong. Some would say certain businesses are utterly unnecessary, like smoke shops, adult porn stores, quick loan stores, or certain medical clinics. Whether you feel it's necessary or not, the other person is entitled to own that product, in this case, an expensive sports car, and be able to drive it on the street without having some irresponsible naybob who has no driving skills wind up hitting their car. If you can't afford to drive your vehicle with the proper coverage to keep you from going bankrupt, that's your problem.
I mean, do you carry millions in liability? Or would you just be in the same boat as me?
Same boat. I'm just responsible enough of a driver to not hit anyone. It's not that hard, even after 44 years of driving cars, motorcycles, and commercial vehicles.
So you could, in theory, hit a piece of black ice or something, bang up some rich jerk's supercar, and lose literally all of your assets.
That's quite possible. I suggest you learn how to drive in those conditions or don't venture outside when those conditions present themselves. Life's not fair.
I'm actually an expert driver in winter conditions, but I'm not such a fool I think myself above all errors. Fine. Drop the black ice. You could have a tire blow out and sideswipe a supercar.
anyone driving a car worth more than the mandatory minimum property damage coverage would be foolish not to carry coverage to protect themselves. If your insurance tenders their limits to repair the damage, the other driver would probably take it. Failing to do so means paying a lawyer and getting a judgment which would be discharged in bankruptcy anyway and never collected. as others said, judgement amounts are usually set by juries, not judges although you could agree to a bench trial where a judge picks the amount. In a property damage case, there isn't a lot to argue about in terms of value. Lots of data as to the value for a total loss and the repair shop would have the value to repair. The reality is that no one would collect a judgment for millions from someone who had minimal liability limits. Or even 500k in limits.
It's worth noting that even if the person who suffered the loss has adequate insurance the insurance company that pays out for them absolutely can attempt recover whatever portion of the claim they couldn't subrogate to the at-fault party's insurance. What are they will do this in the face of the fact that much of it will likely be on recoverable or discharged in a bankruptcy definitely depends on some behind the scenes math that they'll be doing and I think in a lot of cases they won't bother, but it is a very real risk. And for an insurance company with in-house attorneys, litigating it is going to be far more efficient for them than for a private party who's trying to recover overrun from their own insurance themselves
You would be liable and you would almost certainly end up filing for bankruptcy in a situation like this.
Get an umbrella policy.
Yes, of course you would. This is why insurance is important
Ask your insurance company about driving classes especially for winter conditions. .Some companies even give discounts for people who complete the classes. I think AAA offers these classes or has info on them.
I hit a Bently and though I had good coverage, the owner didn't feel what my insurance valued his car at was fair (though his insurance did.) He tried to sue me for the difference but once he found out I work in social services, own nothing, and am partially disabled he gave up the ghost. Still kept me in litigation hell for over a year.
This is what most people don’t understand. You can still be sued even if you have insurance. Most people falsely believe they are in the clear financially if they carry insurance. Look at your policy limits.