Car insurance accident question help please

[GrantMeThePower]

So here's the deal.

My friend was driving on the freeway. (This is all in California).

A car hit a car in the lane next to her. The car that was hit, then veered into her car.

The first car drove off (hit and run). The car that actually hit her stopped.

My friend only has the "limited" progressive policy.

progressive auto insurance sent her a letter saying she was 0% at fault.

However, they are saying she has to pay for all of the damages becasue teh first car (that never hit her) drove off and wasn't identified and her insurance doesn't cover that.

Its crazy, right? First of all, i thought in california that if a car was hit, it was the car that hit thems fault no matter what, and secondly, she was told BY them she wasn't liable

 

[Ns1]

That's the cost of getting cheap insurance


full coverage FTW

 

[Jugernot]

Nope, covered under uninsured motorist. Sucks to be her. :frown:

EDIT: Take this senario, she goes into a store and comes out to find her car smashed. She has liability only, why should her insurance cover the loss? By only having liability, she is saying she only wants her insurance to pay for the other persons car and doesn't need to repair her vehicle.

 

[Baked]

Should've chased after the hit and run guy Death Proof style.

 

[GrantMeThePower]

See, i thought in california, it would be the insurance of the driver that hit her that covered her damage, not the car that hit the car that hit her, you see what i'm saying?

Obviously, if the hit and run person hit her she'd need uninsured motorist insurance.

 

[caspur]

My post disappeared.

Anyway, see if UMPD was purchased under your friend's policy. Some states offer UMPD coverage (in addition to UMBI). Deductibles may apply. Some states allow UMPD to pay the deductibles for collision. Obviously that would not apply here, given the "limited" policy.

Your friend can also claim 3rd party via the car that hit her. If she is denied, small claims can also be an option.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
See, i thought in california, it would be the insurance of the driver that hit her that covered her damage, not the car that hit the car that hit her, you see what i'm saying?

Obviously, if the hit and run person hit her she'd need uninsured motorist insurance.

That's only true if a person's at fault. In your friend's case it was probably NO FAULT since the original driver hit/run. You can't blame a driver that got pushed over because she was hit herself

 

[caspur]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
See, i thought in california, it would be the insurance of the driver that hit her that covered her damage, not the car that hit the car that hit her, you see what i'm saying?

Obviously, if the hit and run person hit her she'd need uninsured motorist insurance.

That's only true if a person's at fault. In your friend's case it was probably NO FAULT since the original driver hit/run. You can't blame a driver that got pushed over because she was hit herself

Actually you can. If the other driver did not take corrective action or can be shown to be negligent in contributing towards the first incident, then correspondingly would have some liability in the secondary collision that resulted.

To give a simple example, a blue car is driving erratically. red car speeds up and attempts to pass blue car. Blue car strikes red car, forcing red car into green car. Blue car flees. Red car would have some liability in striking green car, despite blue car's hit and run. Hit and run does not determine liability. (illegal yes, but has no bearing on fault). This is tort law, not criminal law.

 

[Jugernot]

Originally posted by: caspur

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
See, i thought in california, it would be the insurance of the driver that hit her that covered her damage, not the car that hit the car that hit her, you see what i'm saying?

Obviously, if the hit and run person hit her she'd need uninsured motorist insurance.

That's only true if a person's at fault. In your friend's case it was probably NO FAULT since the original driver hit/run. You can't blame a driver that got pushed over because she was hit herself

Actually you can. If the other driver did not take corrective action or can be shown to be negligent in contributing towards the first incident, then correspondingly would have some liability in the secondary collision that resulted.

To give a simple example, a blue car is driving erratically. red car speeds up and attempts to pass blue car. Blue car strikes red car, forcing red car into green car. Blue car flees. Red car would have some liability in striking green car, despite blue car's hit and run. Hit and run does not determine liability. (illegal yes, but has no bearing on fault). This is tort law, not criminal law.

In the OP senario, that was not the case. By the sounds of it, they middle car could not have avoided the OP friend.

Bad luck on the friend's part, plain and simple.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: caspur

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
See, i thought in california, it would be the insurance of the driver that hit her that covered her damage, not the car that hit the car that hit her, you see what i'm saying?

Obviously, if the hit and run person hit her she'd need uninsured motorist insurance.

That's only true if a person's at fault. In your friend's case it was probably NO FAULT since the original driver hit/run. You can't blame a driver that got pushed over because she was hit herself

Actually you can. If the other driver did not take corrective action or can be shown to be negligent in contributing towards the first incident, then correspondingly would have some liability in the secondary collision that resulted.

To give a simple example, a blue car is driving erratically. red car speeds up and attempts to pass blue car. Blue car strikes red car, forcing red car into green car. Blue car flees. Red car would have some liability in striking green car, despite blue car's hit and run. Hit and run does not determine liability. (illegal yes, but has no bearing on fault). This is tort law, not criminal law.

That's fantastic. Now does that apply to this case?


And to be fair, I got hosed like that as well. I was COMPLETELY STOPPED in a parking lot, signaling to turn into a spot. Chick backed into my car. I went through THEIR insurance company, and they only gave me 70 or 80% because "i didn't honk fast enough".

Never going through another person's insurance company again.

 

[imported_Baloo]

I don't see that blaming the other victim is reasonable. I know it happens, but seriosly calls into question the moral and ethical valuse of those that do it. The driver that fled, based on the OP's info, clearly was at fault. It ain't over yet. No doubt somebody reported a description of the car. They'll get busted sooner or later.

 

[GrantMeThePower]

well this happened like two weeks ago, and they never found the hit and run guy.

I dont know if the other driver could have avoided it or not. They were hit in the back, then veered right. It seemed to me like they got scared and turned right into her instead of going straight but maybe they couldn't control it.

The thing she's really pissed off about is that progressive is stating that they wont even contact the other drivers insurance to try to collect. they're just saying tough cookies.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
So here's the deal.

My friend was driving on the freeway. (This is all in California).

As soon as you said "freeway" everyone knew you were from Kalifornia.

 

[compman25]

Go after the other person and make their insurance cover it. And get better insurance. There's a reason our agency discourages people from Progressive even though we get commission on it if we sell it.

 

[Ricemarine]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
So here's the deal.

My friend was driving on the freeway. (This is all in California).

As soon as you said "freeway" everyone knew you were from Kalifornia.

I don't get it ...

 

[TwiceOver]

Sounds correct to me. Gotta have that uninsured moroist policy. Full coverage FTW.