Fun with uninsured motorists

[PingSpike]

I
Turns out in CO if you drive without insurance you get... a $100 ticket (plus $75 court costs). If you don't show proof of either having obtained insurance or having surrendered your driver's license by your court date there's another possible fine and a possible 1 week of jail time which you can serve on weekends.

No WONDER there's so many uninsured motorists out there causing havoc. If you have no assets it's an easy calculus to make -- very low risk of a $100 ticket or paying thousands in insurance every year.

Why do you think there's so many repeat DUI offenders? Because they don't do anything to them. They suspend their license after they do it 12 times, big whoop. Driving with a suspended license is a $200 fine around here...and you only pay that fine if you actually get caught. Same bullshit.

 

[CraigRT]

Wishing you the best this shitty situation, but it makes me happy to live where I do.
Not allowed to own/operate a car with no insurance. I don't know how it works if you drive without it, but it is the law, and you cant plate cars, renew license stickers, etc. Without proof of insurance.

 

[v8envy]

Wishing you the best this shitty situation, but it makes me happy to live where I do.
Not allowed to own/operate a car with no insurance. I don't know how it works if you drive without it, but it is the law, and you cant plate cars, renew license stickers, etc. Without proof of insurance.

The law says the same thing here. You can't register your car without showing proof of insurance.

Now, in reality here are the loopholes. You can hand-write a paper plate (dealers have pretty ones, but are not required) and drive it that way for 90 days. If stopped say you just gifted it to a family member and they're letting you drive it. The DMV doesn't check your insurance, so you can simply print a card from an online firm (e.g., Progressive, which is who this asshole had), edit the HTML to change the expiration date and present that as your proof when renewing plates. Heck, forging any other insurance card is an exercise in trivial laser printing. And really, how hard would it be to forge (or steal) the license plate stickers as a last resort?

And if you get caught you get a very light slap on the wrist.

 

[CraigRT]

The law says the same thing here. You can't register your car without showing proof of insurance.

Now, in reality here are the loopholes. You can hand-write a paper plate (dealers have pretty ones, but are not required) and drive it that way for 90 days. If stopped say you just gifted it to a family member and they're letting you drive it. The DMV doesn't check your insurance, so you can simply print a card from an online firm (e.g., Progressive, which is who this asshole had), edit the HTML to change the expiration date and present that as your proof when renewing plates. Heck, forging any other insurance card is an exercise in trivial laser printing. And really, how hard would it be to forge (or steal) the license plate stickers as a last resort?

And if you get caught you get a very light slap on the wrist.

Definitely not the same as here.. You can't get away with things like that. If you show proof of ownership, your ownership is also attached to your license plate sticker, which is tied to you. You can't get around it here. Also, there is no such thing as a slap on the wrist. Caught driving without insurance, lose your license.

I guess that's why so many people drive uninsured down there. For one, they actually can, for two, even if they are caught, its just a fine. Probably worth paying the fine to negate an entire years' insurance payments.

 

[alkemyst]

Why do you think there's so many repeat DUI offenders? Because they don't do anything to them. They suspend their license after they do it 12 times, big whoop. Driving with a suspended license is a $200 fine around here...and you only pay that fine if you actually get caught. Same bullshit.

If you get caught driving while suspended on a DUI charge it's a lot more serious.

You have been brainwashed into believing DUI is a big problem. Only 13k deaths per year with any connection to drinking and driving.

Most people that drink and end up driving are not past the point where they are going to hurt / kill someone.

...but hey if we can arrest a million people a year, generate mandatory fines...it's a great revenue generator. If we get people to buy into it, what a fucking lobby we can form.

The person that founded MADD doesn't like the way it's become.

 

[alkemyst]

Isn't this what you're doing in the first place? You're going after the person that caused damage. They have insurance (or UM covers them with your insurance) to guarantee they are financially solvent enough to pay out the covered amount. Was that an effect of tapping your insurance since you had better coverage? I could see that being the case -- final settlement with your insurance, or you're on your own trying to collect from the other guy.

It's clearly obvious laws and regulations are too complex and whimsical for a layman like myself. There's no reason to know any of this stuff until everything is done, and by then it's too late. Just that much more reason to make sure to identify good lawyers before you need them I guess.

Not exactly. It sounds like you are looking for a lottery type payout and don't want any responsibility at all in this like not using your own health care or sick time.

It'd be different if you were going after an individual, but no lawyer wants to do that anymore when even at the low end of things a corporation is highly likely to pay out and settle to avoid high litigation costs.

I don't know what the number is today, but about 5 or so years ago most suits at $10-15k were simply paid out if enough of a 'case' was presented by any half-assed lawyer.

Lawyers have also changed the system where in the past their 30-40% of the cut was all inclusive, they now will bill out everything down to the phone call. Copies are an excellent fluffer to a bill...making 10 sets of everything at even a few cents per sheet adds up fast.

I don't agree that everyone is owed something if wronged or things don't work out for them.

 

[Vette73]

If you get caught driving while suspended on a DUI charge it's a lot more serious.

You have been brainwashed into believing DUI is a big problem. Only 13k deaths per year with any connection to drinking and driving.

Most people that drink and end up driving are not past the point where they are going to hurt / kill someone.

...but hey if we can arrest a million people a year, generate mandatory fines...it's a great revenue generator. If we get people to buy into it, what a fucking lobby we can form.

The person that founded MADD doesn't like the way it's become.

Quoted for stupid.

Shocking you are a drunk that still denies it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

We're scrambling quite a bit because my wife was in the hospital all day, most of that strapped to a board. She can't do anything for a few days, and both of us missing a lot of work.

That's not covered by the uninsured motorist insurance. Neither is rental car once she can move around so she can get to work, or deductable or a billion other things. In fact, I'm not sure what the uninsired insurance is for -- as far as I can tell it's just my comprehensive collision being invoked.

Not treating this as winning the lottery -- we're going to take a few thousands of dollars worth of hit over this. If possible I'd like to... not have to do that.

Anyhoo, talked to a lawyer and it looks like suing our insurance co is what's required, and also suing the other guy for restitution. Looks like our insurance co can also go after him for restitution afterward.

Suckage galore for all involved. But hopefully he'll learn a lesson from all this and start spreading the word that driving around while high and uninsured is not the best possible thing in the world.

Why would you sue your own insurance company?

Sue the shit out of the idiot who hit you but at this point I'd just work with your insurance company.

 

[alkemyst]

Quoted for stupid.

Shocking you are a drunk that still denies it.

Where were my FACTS wrong? Do you not believe there are only 13k DUI deaths a year (the other 30k are non-DUI fatalies....you may even argue that out of the 13k that 2/3 of those would have happened regardless of drinking)?

or is it that you don't believe just how many are arrested per year?

 

[v8envy]

Why would you sue your own insurance company?

Sue the shit out of the idiot who hit you but at this point I'd just work with your insurance company.

I'm making a claim against my insurance company because the idiot has none. That's the way it works -- if the guy has no insurance, property damage is a claim against my comprehensive (uninsured motorist insurance only covers bodily harm, if you don't have comprehensive on your car and are hit by an uninsured guy you're SOL, at least in colorado. that's why a deductable applies to getting my car fixed and why a rental car isn't covered while neither would be the case if he had insurance).

The reason a lawyer is involved (read: suing my insurance co) is because without one this will wind up costing me a pile of money. And btw, they're taking 30%, all inclusive. No additional charges. I *am* working with the insurance co. After we negotiate there I'll take the proposed settlement to the law firm and we'll decide if it's worth rolling the dice on getting a bigger settlement. 12-15k is very likely to just be settled without going to court if I have a lawyer, yes. Without one a more likely settlment is $0 above actual hospital costs, and I eat the decutables and other misc.

Unlike alkemyst I feel if someone causes damage then they should pay for it, not the person who got damaged. He'll wind up owing my insurance company whatever they pay me. The more I get, the more he's on the hook for. I consider that a win.

 

[v8envy]

Most people that drink and end up driving are not past the point where they are going to hurt / kill someone.

Do "most" of these people just go "oh hey, I've had six beers. That's only enough to cause property damage, I'm going to stop now before I get drunk enough to hurt or kill someone."

I know of *3* cases now where a drunk or high driver was involved in the accident and in all 3 cases there were multiple injuries. Sorry, I don't buy that it's this rare and unique snowflake of an occurance. I'm fine with it being a revenue generator, my only problem with it it's not enough of one to deter the behavior.

Driving while impaired is driving while impaired. The penalties are not harsh enough if there are still drunks/drugged out people causing ANY damage at all. Driving is a privilege not a right, and one explicitly NOT one granted if you are inebriated.

 

[v8envy]

Where were my FACTS wrong? Do you not believe there are only 13k DUI deaths a year (the other 30k are non-DUI fatalies....you may even argue that out of the 13k that 2/3 of those would have happened regardless of drinking)?

or is it that you don't believe just how many are arrested per year?

Think about what you're saying. Unless you are arguing that most of the people are on the road drunk then drunks are responsible for a wildly disproportionate number of fatalities.

What would you say is the % of drunk people on the road now? 1%? 10%? 50%? I don't have the numbers but I'd think less than 1% of people on the road right now are driving under the influence, and they're causing 30% of fatal accidents.

If 1/3 of the people on the road right now are blitzed (making it equally likely that a drunk or non-drunk will get into a fatal wreck) then we have a monstrous problem. From personal experience I refuse to believe 1/3 of the drivers on the road are drunk, not even evenings on a holiday.

 

[alkemyst]

Some things no one considers...pick an average night club district...if you were to stop most motorists leaving those areas between 10pm and 2am most would fail the .10 breath test.

Most of the DUI fatalities are self-inflicted and no one else hurt. These tend to take place nearby where they were drinking and usually late at night/off hours.

Almost all fatalities on the road are due to something wrong the driver was doing..not normal driving. This is the same for most accidents, but you don't go around passing laws that avoid for road blocks and unconstitutional law.

Also it's not hard to realize but you seem to have missed it...out of those 13k fatalities not all the DUI drivers were at fault.

It's about revenue not lives and most have been duped.

 

[alkemyst]

Do "most" of these people just go "oh hey, I've had six beers. That's only enough to cause property damage, I'm going to stop now before I get drunk enough to hurt or kill someone."

I know of *3* cases now where a drunk or high driver was involved in the accident and in all 3 cases there were multiple injuries. Sorry, I don't buy that it's this rare and unique snowflake of an occurance. I'm fine with it being a revenue generator, my only problem with it it's not enough of one to deter the behavior.

Driving while impaired is driving while impaired. The penalties are not harsh enough if there are still drunks/drugged out people causing ANY damage at all. Driving is a privilege not a right, and one explicitly NOT one granted if you are inebriated.

EVERYONE knows a DUI related death, but sadly most can't say they know of any murdered people...about the same number of each happen.

Thing is most people are buying into this and a total stranger living 200 miles from them is now a buddy / friend / etc.

The numbers don't lie. 13,000 fatalities. Hundreds of thousands of arrests. Most that are arrested and even re-arrested go on to never harm anyone.

Most will not drive fall down drunk. A few that do are the ones killing people.

 

[alkemyst]

Unlike alkemyst I feel if someone causes damage then they should pay for it, not the person who got damaged. He'll wind up owing my insurance company whatever they pay me. The more I get, the more he's on the hook for. I consider that a win.

wow. So someone else should be left holding the bag. I can't believe you wrote this.

ENTITLEMENT FOR THE MOTHER FUCKING LOSS.

 

[Spicedaddy]

lol, I thought going after your own insurance was weird, then comes the loser defending drunk drivers!

I live in Quebec, Canada. If the same situation would've happened to me, my basic car insurance (liability only since I drive an old junk) would fix my car with NO deductible because the accident is someone else's fault, even if they're not insured... They might sue the other driver afterwards, not my problem!

I'd also never see a medical bill since we have free health care for everyone, and the SAAQ (provincial auto insurance) would send me a fat check to compensate for missed work, injuries, etc.

 

[v8envy]

Some things no one considers...pick an average night club district...if you were to stop most motorists leaving those areas between 10pm and 2am most would fail the .10 breath test.

Most of the DUI fatalities are self-inflicted and no one else hurt. These tend to take place nearby where they were drinking and usually late at night/off hours.

So, do you think drivers on the road near night clubs between 10pm and 2am cause 1/3 of all fatalities? That alone proves my point. If you look at traffic during peak hours (6am-10am and 4pm-8pm) you will see about 10x as many people on the road. Even if 100% of all drivers on the road between 10 and 2 were drunk that would still make the 1/3 fatalities number being disproportionately caused by drunks.

The reality is, the lion's share of vehicle miles are racked up during commutes to and from work, and for business reasons. Way less than 1% of those drivers are going to be DUI. 1/3 of all fatalities involving drugs or alcohol is a disproportionate number. Sub-1% and I'd agree with you. 33%? Hell no.

Almost all fatalities on the road are due to something wrong the driver was doing..not normal driving. This is the same for most accidents, but you don't go around passing laws that avoid for road blocks and unconstitutional law.

Exactly right. And a sedated driver can't react as quickly as they would without sedation. Hell, look at the cretin who hit my wife. He had probably 10 seconds to start slowing down. But all witnesses said he didn't even try.

Also it's not hard to realize but you seem to have missed it...out of those 13k fatalities not all the DUI drivers were at fault.

It's about revenue not lives and most have been duped.

You can say that all you want, but I find driving while under the influence indefensible. The rest of the world agrees. The US has some of the most lax laws when it comes to this (and driving in general), and I completely disagree.

Once again, I agree with revenue. If someone is going to engage in an activity to disproportionately increase the risk of life or property loss to others they should pay a disproportionate amount into a pool used to compensate victims.

 

[v8envy]

wow. So someone else should be left holding the bag. I can't believe you wrote this.

ENTITLEMENT FOR THE MOTHER FUCKING LOSS.

Wait, so are you arguing against the concept of tort, or against insurance companies paying claims under the obligation they assume when they COLLECT UNINSURED MOTORIST INSURANCE premiums?

I'm confused.

If you find the whole concept of social contract, responsibility and safety nets to ensure victims aren't the ones footing the bill for irresponsible or criminal behavior so revolting and appalling, what are you doing living in a first world country? Most of us here prefer civilization. There are plenty of places in the world where you're free to do as you please with no effective law enforcement. You can drive drunk or cause damage to others with absolutely no worries that they'll be entitled to compensation by "someone else." Sounds like Darfur would be right up your alley.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm making a claim against my insurance company because the idiot has none. That's the way it works -- if the guy has no insurance, property damage is a claim against my comprehensive (uninsured motorist insurance only covers bodily harm, if you don't have comprehensive on your car and are hit by an uninsured guy you're SOL, at least in colorado. that's why a deductable applies to getting my car fixed and why a rental car isn't covered while neither would be the case if he had insurance).

The reason a lawyer is involved (read: suing my insurance co) is because without one this will wind up costing me a pile of money. And btw, they're taking 30%, all inclusive. No additional charges. I *am* working with the insurance co. After we negotiate there I'll take the proposed settlement to the law firm and we'll decide if it's worth rolling the dice on getting a bigger settlement. 12-15k is very likely to just be settled without going to court if I have a lawyer, yes. Without one a more likely settlment is $0 above actual hospital costs, and I eat the decutables and other misc.

Unlike alkemyst I feel if someone causes damage then they should pay for it, not the person who got damaged. He'll wind up owing my insurance company whatever they pay me. The more I get, the more he's on the hook for. I consider that a win.

Well, alkemyst is a drunk and he'll probably end up doing to someone else what the guy who hit you did one of these days. Nobody agrees with him.

And I agree with you, I just think it's kind of counter intuitive to sue your own insurance company right off the bat. I've had claims that weren't my fault where I was hit by an uninsured motorist and my insurance company covered everything for me including rental car. They even waived my deductible.

I hope your wife is okay.

 

[alkemyst]

So, do you think drivers on the road near night clubs between 10pm and 2am cause 1/3 of all fatalities? That alone proves my point. If you look at traffic during peak hours (6am-10am and 4pm-8pm) you will see about 10x as many people on the road. Even if 100% of all drivers on the road between 10 and 2 were drunk that would still make the 1/3 fatalities number being disproportionately caused by drunks.

The reality is, the lion's share of vehicle miles are racked up during commutes to and from work, and for business reasons. Way less than 1% of those drivers are going to be DUI. 1/3 of all fatalities involving drugs or alcohol is a disproportionate number. Sub-1% and I'd agree with you. 33%? Hell no.

Exactly right. And a sedated driver can't react as quickly as they would without sedation. Hell, look at the cretin who hit my wife. He had probably 10 seconds to start slowing down. But all witnesses said he didn't even try.

You can say that all you want, but I find driving while under the influence indefensible. The rest of the world agrees. The US has some of the most lax laws when it comes to this (and driving in general), and I completely disagree.

Once again, I agree with revenue. If someone is going to engage in an activity to disproportionately increase the risk of life or property loss to others they should pay a disproportionate amount into a pool used to compensate victims.

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Reality is measured by the stats.

A "high" driver is much different than a "drunk/sedated" one.

You are on a pilgrimage now and I doubt you had the study to partake it.

You are looking at a big financial score more than anything. I'd personally say work on being financially stable first (includes PROPER insurance)...then cut through the chaff of life.

If you truly understood the argument in life you'd never defend the mere 13,000 deaths a year to all the impact it has on our society, freedom and government.

Gun laws have a similar battle.

 

[alkemyst]

Well, alkemyst is a drunk and he'll probably end up doing to someone else what the guy who hit you did one of these days. Nobody agrees with him.

And I agree with you, I just think it's kind of counter intuitive to sue your own insurance company right off the bat. I've had claims that weren't my fault where I was hit by an uninsured motorist and my insurance company covered everything for me including rental car. They even waived my deductible.

I hope your wife is okay.

I am not a drunk. Please no longer attack me personally or I will do the same to you. Personally I believe you are trying to escape from your family but don't have the balls to do so, Mr. "Biker".

 

[alkemyst]

lol, I thought going after your own insurance was weird, then comes the loser defending drunk drivers!

You fucking lack comprehension. I never said it was ok to drive drunk, I said our laws aren't targeting them.

In the end, by a default they aren't really fucking up things as a whole in everything that spins around us.

Still any death by this kind of thing is really bad when it's just not themselves killing themself.

Fortunately it's extremely rare although it seems more common due to the sensationalism the news coverage brings.

I seriously beg anyone that thinks otherwise to search the true statistics on these kind of crimes in regards to what happens, who ends up arrested, and the revenue generated by those arrests.

You will find DUI laws are the real winner in compensation and in the end minimal death. Meanwhile real violent crime misses the radar.

Again I am not defending drinking and driving. I am just saying most having a couple drinks and heading home aren't hurting anyone, but they can be arrested and fucked without recourse.

 

[RKS]

I've handled a few UM/UIM claims but for the most part insurance companies are fair especially to those that have been with the company a long time. More than a few years ago a settlement was usually around 3X meds/specials for auto accidents with subjective injuries but now I see more insurance companies start off with staggeringly low offers.
OP had the foresight to get med pay and UM/UIM and paid the premium now he should be able to use that portion of his insurance without guilt. Good luck.