Legal advice re: no auto insurance - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

MrSector9 · 02-17-2011, 10:18 PM

After reading what she had done...

she is done for.

Cecil Terwilliger · 02-17-2011, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanda

thats no minor accident, there is 4 parties involved.

Pretty sure the distinction between minor and major is more about the damage not the number of vehicles.

theonlywhiteout · 02-17-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSector9

her only choice if it was minor and no one injured to to try to settle out and have the police case closed. However if the police are already involved at the scene then she is like said above.. hooped.

Paying the goverment back is one thing, paying for insurance after this is a completely different story.

I know she pleads ignorance but how can she not known she did not pay, if it came back becasue of $12 it would have NSF'ed in her account, to already be at in collect then it has been for qquite some time, did she never check her account?

I checked in with her and she says that everyone was fine, only damage to the car.

As far as the NSF thing.. I dunno man. I cant ever dream of driving without knowing 100% my insurance is good... to be fair tho she's a lot on her mind health wise last couple months (taht turned out good) so I can see how sometime can slip her mind but... this important. I agree, it's careless. But that's where the situation is.

shermanator · 02-17-2011, 10:21 PM

Sounds like your friend is pretty careless...

Slava · 02-17-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

what if the accident was minor and vehicle damage only? or wil it be like sharks in water once they find out shes not insured?

No, they can't all target her for everything just because shes uninsured. As Vlad pointed out the claims are settled for the other motorists and then the government comes to her for the portion they pay.

Is its an accident where she is at fault completely then she can expect to pay all of the damages caused. If liability is split then the damages are apportioned and she'll be on the hook for her portion.

HOOT · 02-17-2011, 10:31 PM

Tell her to lawyer up in a hurry!

MrSector9 · 02-17-2011, 10:35 PM

on a lighter note:

Mexico is also nice this time of year, besides kidnappings and such

speede5 · 02-17-2011, 10:39 PM

How long after the NSF was it. Make sure she reads the fine print in her insurance. If they cancelled it it must have been a while.

In SK you still have insurance for a month after either an NSF or a failure to reregister if you are on autopay. If you NSF they do a double the next month and all is well, you don't have to do anything. If you forget to go in and renew, they keep taking payments so you are covered but you will get a ticket for an unregistered vehicle if the cops catch you.

I doubt any of this helps but she should look over her contract as they may have cancelled her to hastily? Especially given that she didn't sign a cancellation.

ken0042 · 02-17-2011, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

From what I understand shes only responsible for the rear most car. The other guys were too close together and thats why they teach you to stop far back.

Well, back in 1992 I was at fault for a multi car rear-ender. Lead car slammed on his brakes, second car stopped just short, and I didn't stop in time.

My insurance company had to pay out for all the damages.

theonlywhiteout · 02-17-2011, 10:56 PM

what are the odds the insurance company takes mercy on her? realistically? if she can make a good enough case she made the effort to change address and they botched it, and they some how believe her, is there any chance?

Slava · 02-17-2011, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

Well, back in 1992 I was at fault for a multi car rear-ender. Lead car slammed on his brakes, second car stopped just short, and I didn't stop in time.

My insurance company had to pay out for all the damages.

well for at least a decade now the insurance companies would settle this with a "fault chart". So basically the last car in the line pays for the damages to the rear of the car ahead of it, but that car pays for its front damages and the damages of the car ahead of them.

The fault chart saves a lot of bickering, which is a good thing, but also means that extenuating circumstances are basically never taken into account.

Byrns · 02-17-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

what are the odds the insurance company takes mercy on her? realistically? if she can make a good enough case she made the effort to change address and they botched it, and they some how believe her, is there any chance?

I haven't heard of a "nice" insurance company before...

burn_this_city · 02-17-2011, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

what are the odds the insurance company takes mercy on her? realistically? if she can make a good enough case she made the effort to change address and they botched it, and they some how believe her, is there any chance?

I'd consider that wishful thinking.

ken0042 · 02-17-2011, 11:02 PM

That's just weird then, Slava. While the police officer who witnessed my crash told me he likely would have done the same thing; (two kids were play fighting on a snowbank beside the road; I was watching them instead of the car in front of me)- it was my fault that the car in front of me was pushed forward. He had come to a full stop and I plowed right into him.

Rathji · 02-17-2011, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

what are the odds the insurance company takes mercy on her? realistically? if she can make a good enough case she made the effort to change address and they botched it, and they some how believe her, is there any chance?

Unless it is written into the contract (or law, like the example given about Sask ) chances are pretty much zero that an insurance company will pay out on the policy.

burn_this_city · 02-17-2011, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

That's just weird then, Slava. While the police officer who witnessed my crash told me he likely would have done the same thing; (two kids were play fighting on a snowbank beside the road; I was watching them instead of the car in front of me)- it was my fault that the car in front of me was pushed forward. He had come to a full stop and I plowed right into him.

If he was on the brakes with a safe following/stopping distance he shouldnt have hit the other guy. It could happen to most drivers because hardly anyone except annoying drivers leave the car length plus gap when stopping.

BlackArcher101 · 02-17-2011, 11:08 PM

Did she send the change of address fax after or before the NSF payment (ie, cancellation)?

HOOT · 02-17-2011, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

what are the odds the insurance company takes mercy on her? realistically? if she can make a good enough case she made the effort to change address and they botched it, and they some how believe her, is there any chance?

They are going to want proof that she tried. And really she should have followed up if all she did was fax something off and hope it worked without confirmation. Once it got to the creditors it was long canceled and why didn't she stop driving at that point until it was resolved?

There is a reason they send reg letters to last known address (which she should have had forwarded) and that's to get off the risk. They got off it, she continued to drive and she won't have very much sympathy from an insurance company without some type of proof.

She just has to be lucky no one was hurt, or is claiming injury, because it would get very ugly for her and the rest of her life. I believe you can't go bankrupt over liability claims like this which means one way or another she is paying for those damages.

Talk to a lawyer! It may cost her some cash but at least she will get some proper advice and possibly save herself from a possible lifetime of paying off this accident. And just because people tell her they are fine doesn't mean they are, I know many cases where they say this because they don't want the confrontation and know the insurance company and courts will side with them regardless of what they said to her.

ken0042 · 02-17-2011, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

If he was on the brakes with a safe following/stopping distance he shouldnt have hit the other guy. It could happen to most drivers because hardly anyone except annoying drivers leave the car length plus gap when stopping.

I'm not sure that applies. The lead car slammed on his brakes for no apparent reason; it wasn't like they were approaching an intersection or something. It was a cabbie arguing with his passenger and he decided to just stop right there.

I'm obviously wrong about how I see things; seeing as they have changed the law. I'll admit to that and if anybody needs me; I'll be in the "Angry Dome."

burn_this_city · 02-17-2011, 11:22 PM

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the guy in front of you had followed at a safe distance 2-3 seconds or whatever, he should have been able to stop without being so close he was pushed into the cab. That whole story sounds infuriating because the cabbie in my opinion should have been charged with careless driving and ultimately been responsible for the accident.