|
|
|
Recently I was involved in the unfortunate situation of being behind a
psychotic woman in traffic, one of those drivers who drive with their
eyes glued to the rear view mirror watching the car behind them. I
kept my distance, as I always do - never been a tailgater, despise
them myself - but as we approached the next intersection she slammed
on the brakes and came to a full stop on purpose and of course, I rear
ended her. She jumped out of her car with a pleased look on her face
and said "There! I hope that teaches you never to follow too close
again!"
After I recovered from the shock of having just been in an accident
caused on purpose by some psychopath who has a thing about people
driving behind them, I tried to reason with her and explain that I was
not following too closely, and, if she felt I was, there were better
ways to deal with it than to cause a crash on purpose.
As luck would have it a police officer drove by and stopped. After
listening to both stories he gave me the ticket saying "In the state
of Florida the rear ender is always at fault, no matter what the
driver in front did." The result - a "careless driving" ticket.
Now I'm stuck with $1500 in damages thanks to this crazy woman and a
$115 traffic citation. I carry liability insurance only since my car
is old and paid off and I was hoping to use the insurance savings to
put toward getting another car.
The traffic ticket has three options:
1- pay the ticket ($115) and points will be applied to my license.
2- attend traffic school (cost: $115 ticket + about $30-40 for school)
and no points applied to license.
3- elect to go to trial, where the other driver will be summoned and
the police officer will also be there.
If I had been at fault, I'd pay the ticket and opt for traffic school
and that would be the end of it, and no points applied to license.
But since this accident was maliciously and intentionally caused by
another driver who was too sensitive to other vehicles following her
and wanted to "teach me a lesson" I would like to go to court and at
least expose her and what she did because what she did should not go
unpunished, and if she did it to me, she'll no doubt do it to others
as well (if she hasn't already! She looked like a pro at this.) In
other words, *she* needs a lesson. And I would also like to go after
her to pay for my damages since she caused the crash on purpose.
Lots of people are telling me not to go to court, based on "rear ender
always loses, is always at fault no matter what." They tell me it's a
guaranteed losing situation for me. Plus, I'll have to pay the court
costs on top of the traffic ticket if I lose, which can be as high as
$500.
What should I do??? Is there anyone who thinks I actually might have
a chance of winning this???
Plus, I would like to sue her in civil court for my damages, does it
make a difference in that case whether I went to trial on the ticket
or I took the traffic school option (something along the lines of "if
you took the easy way out and went to traffic school it means you were
guilty.") Do I run the risk of some judge ruling against me because I
chose traffic school? Then again, if I chose to go to trial and I
lose, that won't look so good in a civil suit for damages either.
Advice, comments, or opinions greatly appreciated.
|
| |
| |
In article <cnvkp0phth6990mgo200lm5sjh3n9kvpri@4ax.com>,
ed <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Recently I was involved in the unfortunate situation of being behind a
psychotic woman in traffic, one of those drivers who drive with their
eyes glued to the rear view mirror watching the car behind them. I
kept my distance, as I always do - never been a tailgater, despise
them myself - but as we approached the next intersection she slammed
on the brakes and came to a full stop on purpose and of course, I rear
ended her. She jumped out of her car with a pleased look on her face
and said "There! I hope that teaches you never to follow too close
again!"
Your initial premise is faulty. So what if you she did it deliberately.
What if she had done it because she had suddenly encountered someone
jumping in front of her? The fact of the matter is that if her "slamming
on the brakes" caused you to hit her, YOU WERE TOO CLOSE!.
Although I deplore her actions, she was right about that fact. In a
genuine emergency, you would have hit her just the same.
Take the traffic school option you mentioned. You apparently need it.
<snip>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
|
| |
| |
ed wrote:
Recently I was involved in the unfortunate situation of being behind a
/snip/
Don't want to hit the person in front of you? Stay further back. It's the
law.
Just wait until her lawyer files suit. You haven't seen anything yet.
|
| |
| |
Recently I was involved in the unfortunate situation of being behind
a psychotic woman in traffic, one of those drivers who drive with
their eyes glued to the rear view mirror watching the car behind them.
I kept my distance, as I always do - never been a tailgater, despise
them myself - but as we approached the next intersection she slammed
on the brakes and came to a full stop on purpose and of course, I rear
ended her. She jumped out of her car with a pleased look on her face
and said "There! I hope that teaches you never to follow too close again!"
After I recovered from the shock of having just been in an accident
caused on purpose by some psychopath who has a thing about
people driving behind them, I tried to reason with her and explain
that I was not following too closely, and, if she felt I was, there
were better ways to deal with it than to cause a crash on purpose.
As luck would have it a police officer drove by and stopped.
After listening to both stories he gave me the ticket saying "In
the state of Florida the rear ender is always at fault, no matter
what the driver in front did." The result - a "careless driving" ticket.
Thats basically correct. The short story is that you are sposed
to leave enough space between you and the car in front of you
so that you can still stop even if it does a crash stop, say
because a little kid has run out in front of the car in front etc.
He's overstating the law, most obviously in the situation where
the driver of car in front deliberately puts that car into reverse
in order ram the car behind them, but thats not what happened.
Now I'm stuck with $1500 in damages thanks to this crazy
woman and a $115 traffic citation. I carry liability insurance
only since my car is old and paid off and I was hoping to
use the insurance savings to put toward getting another car.
Thats always the risk you take, that someone else may
do something very stupid that you cant avoid in practice.
The traffic ticket has three options:
1- pay the ticket ($115) and points will be applied to my license.
2- attend traffic school (cost: $115 ticket + about $30-40 for school)
and no points applied to license.
3- elect to go to trial, where the other driver will be
summoned and the police officer will also be there.
And you could well end up out of pocket for quite a bit more.
If I had been at fault, I'd pay the ticket and opt for traffic school
and that would be the end of it, and no points applied to license.
But since this accident was maliciously and intentionally caused by
another driver who was too sensitive to other vehicles following her
and wanted to "teach me a lesson" I would like to go to court and at
least expose her and what she did because what she did should not
go unpunished, and if she did it to me, she'll no doubt do it to others
as well (if she hasn't already! She looked like a pro at this.)
In other words, *she* needs a lesson.
She's unlikely to get one.
And I would also like to go after her to pay for my
damages since she caused the crash on purpose.
You've got buckleys.
Lots of people are telling me not to go to court, based on
"rear ender always loses, is always at fault no matter what."
They tell me it's a guaranteed losing situation for me.
They're right.
Plus, I'll have to pay the court costs on top of the
traffic ticket if I lose, which can be as high as $500.
Yep.
What should I do???
2
Is there anyone who thinks I actually
might have a chance of winning this???
There's always a tiny chance given the capricious nature
of the US legal system, but its only a tiny one and you are
certain to line the pockets of legal parasites in the process.
Plus, I would like to sue her in civil court for my damages,
That would be even more stupid, essentially
because its basically her word against yours.
does it make a difference in that case whether I went
to trial on the ticket or I took the traffic school option
(something along the lines of "if you took the easy way
out and went to traffic school it means you were guilty.")
Yes, her lawyer would be sure to run that line.
He'd be stupid/negligent not to.
Do I run the risk of some judge ruling
against me because I chose traffic school?
Yep.
Then again, if I chose to go to trial and I lose, that
won't look so good in a civil suit for damages either.
True.
Advice, comments, or opinions greatly appreciated.
|
| |
| |
Recently I was involved in the unfortunate situation of being behind a
psychotic woman in traffic, one of those drivers who drive with their
eyes glued to the rear view mirror watching the car behind them. I
kept my distance, as I always do - never been a tailgater, despise
them myself - but as we approached the next intersection she slammed
on the brakes and came to a full stop on purpose and of course, I rear
ended her. She jumped out of her car with a pleased look on her face
and said "There! I hope that teaches you never to follow too close
again!"
After I recovered from the shock of having just been in an accident
caused on purpose by some psychopath who has a thing about people
driving behind them, I tried to reason with her and explain that I was
not following too closely, and, if she felt I was, there were better
ways to deal with it than to cause a crash on purpose.
As luck would have it a police officer drove by and stopped. After
listening to both stories he gave me the ticket saying "In the state
of Florida the rear ender is always at fault, no matter what the
driver in front did." The result - a "careless driving" ticket.
Now I'm stuck with $1500 in damages thanks to this crazy woman and a
$115 traffic citation. I carry liability insurance only since my car
is old and paid off and I was hoping to use the insurance savings to
put toward getting another car.
The traffic ticket has three options:
1- pay the ticket ($115) and points will be applied to my license.
2- attend traffic school (cost: $115 ticket + about $30-40 for school)
and no points applied to license.
3- elect to go to trial, where the other driver will be summoned and
the police officer will also be there.
If I had been at fault, I'd pay the ticket and opt for traffic school
and that would be the end of it, and no points applied to license.
But since this accident was maliciously and intentionally caused by
another driver who was too sensitive to other vehicles following her
and wanted to "teach me a lesson" I would like to go to court and at
least expose her and what she did because what she did should not go
unpunished, and if she did it to me, she'll no doubt do it to others
as well (if she hasn't already! She looked like a pro at this.) In
other words, *she* needs a lesson. And I would also like to go after
her to pay for my damages since she caused the crash on purpose.
Lots of people are telling me not to go to court, based on "rear ender
always loses, is always at fault no matter what." They tell me it's a
guaranteed losing situation for me. Plus, I'll have to pay the court
costs on top of the traffic ticket if I lose, which can be as high as
$500.
What should I do??? Is there anyone who thinks I actually might have
a chance of winning this???
Plus, I would like to sue her in civil court for my damages, does it
make a difference in that case whether I went to trial on the ticket
or I took the traffic school option (something along the lines of "if
you took the easy way out and went to traffic school it means you were
guilty.") Do I run the risk of some judge ruling against me because I
chose traffic school? Then again, if I chose to go to trial and I
lose, that won't look so good in a civil suit for damages either.
Advice, comments, or opinions greatly appreciated.
This is an interesting problem. I think the fact that you told the officer
right away what the woman said might sway a judge in civil court. Did she
deny it? Did the officer seem to believe you?
As far as the traffic ticket, I think you should look in the traffic code
for your state and see if there is any charge for people maliciously causing
an accident. If you were following a reasonable distance for the driving
conditions you might have an argument.
Viv
|
| |
| |
ed <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Recently I was involved in the unfortunate situation of being behind a
psychotic woman in traffic, one of those drivers who drive with their
eyes glued to the rear view mirror watching the car behind them. I
kept my distance, as I always do - never been a tailgater, despise
them myself - but as we approached the next intersection she slammed
on the brakes and came to a full stop on purpose and of course, I rear
ended her. She jumped out of her car with a pleased look on her face
and said "There! I hope that teaches you never to follow too close
again!"
Since you did hit her, you were following too close. You were at
fault. She was right. Case closed.
|
| |
| |
ed wrote:
Recently I was involved in the unfortunate situation of being behind a
psychotic woman in traffic, one of those drivers who drive with their
eyes glued to the rear view mirror watching the car behind them. I
kept my distance, as I always do - never been a tailgater, despise
them myself - but as we approached the next intersection she slammed
on the brakes and came to a full stop on purpose and of course, I rear
ended her. She jumped out of her car with a pleased look on her face
and said "There! I hope that teaches you never to follow too close
again!"
<snip>
quite simply, yer @$#*ed. Yes, the other driver is a cunt and should
lose her license, but the fact is, you should be maintaining a following
distance such that even if someone does slam on their brakes that you
still can stop short of them. So you either really were following too
close or else weren't paying close enough attention. Of course, one
could make the argument that one wasn't prepared for someone pulling a
full-effort stop in front of you for no apparent reason, but I don't
expect that to wash in court.
Personally I'd retain a lawyer right away against the possibility that
this person is trying to scam you/your insurance company for "whiplash,"
"pain and suffering" etc. etc.
good luck,
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
|
| |
| |
Insurance companies advertise that they have anti-fraud units to
prosecute people that cause accidents like this then file claims.
OP, talk to your insurance company.
Bob
|
| |
| |
Advice, comments, or opinions greatly appreciated.
You were at fault because you didn't have your car under control. You are
required to be far enough back to stop whatever the situation might be.
|
| |
| |
In article <aHvmd.42261$As5.27977@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Travis
Jordan <no.one@no.net> wrote:
ed wrote:
/snip/
Don't want to hit the person in front of you? Stay further back. It's the
law.
That sounds like such simple advice, but in the real world, it
isn't always possible. In bumper to bumper metro traffic, the
moment you open up even half of what is safe following distance,
some one is going to nudge their way in front of you, and then
you will have to stop to re-establish that half safe following
distance. In the end, folks will be pushing their way in front
of you creating an even more dangerous situation.
-john-
--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================
|
| |
| |
John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article <aHvmd.42261$As5.27977@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Travis
Jordan <no.one@no.net> wrote:
That sounds like such simple advice, but in the real world, it
isn't always possible. In bumper to bumper metro traffic, the
moment you open up even half of what is safe following distance,
some one is going to nudge their way in front of you, and then
you will have to stop to re-establish that half safe following
distance. In the end, folks will be pushing their way in front
of you creating an even more dangerous situation.
-john-
Truth is, though, often a "safe following distance" (as defined by the
MVA or whomever) really isn't required, one just needs to familiarize
oneself with the braking capabilities of one's vehicle. It would
probably shock most people just how fast even the most unwieldy vehicles
can stop - on dry pavement. (on wet pavement, all bets are off, but
probably drivers are more familiar with common traction limits there.)
Anyway, braking forces of close to 1G are possible in most cars, but
most *drivers* become uncomfortable around 0.3G or thereabouts.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
|
| |
| |
ed <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Now I'm stuck with $1500 in damages thanks to this crazy woman and a
$115 traffic citation. I carry liability insurance only since my car
is old and paid off and I was hoping to use the insurance savings to
put toward getting another car.
Unfortunately, you rolled the dice and lost. My insurance company has been
sending out letters about organized gangs who intentionally cause rear-enders as
an insurance fraud scheme. Your company, even though they have no liability in
this incident, may be able to offer you some advice based on their experience
with intentional collisions. Aside from that, you might want to talk to a local
lawyer and see what they can suggest.
|
| |
| |
| Insurance companies advertise that they have anti-fraud units to
| prosecute people that cause accidents like this then file claims.
| OP, talk to your insurance company.
|| Bob
||That is the right course of action. Your Insurance company is there to
represent you...they may want to pursue it at their risk and expense (or not).
|
| |
| |
James C. Reeves <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:js2dnQEVi6nJAQfcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
Bob <bobnospam1@softhome.net> wrote
Insurance companies advertise that they have anti-fraud units
to prosecute people that cause accidents like this then file claims.
OP, talk to your insurance company.
He doesnt have one, stupid.
That is the right course of action.
Not in this case.
Your Insurance company is there to represent you...
He doesnt have an insurance company for that type of damage.
they may want to pursue it at their risk and expense (or not).
Tad unlikely unless you believe in fairy insurance
companys at the bottom of the garden or sumfin.
|
| |
| |
<snip>
Truth is, though, often a "safe following distance" (as defined by the
MVA or whomever) really isn't required, one just needs to familiarize
oneself with the braking capabilities of one's vehicle.
<snip>
Yea, just tell that to the cop as he writes a ticket for following too
closely...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004
|
| |
| |
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
OP, talk to your insurance company.
He doesnt have one, stupid.
I suggest you go back and very carefully read the original post before
demonstrating your own lack of intelligence. The OP said he had liability
insurance only, not collision.
|
| |
| |
In article <cnvkp0phth6990mgo200lm5sjh3n9kvpri@4ax.com>, ed wrote:
Recently I was involved in the unfortunate situation of being behind a
psychotic woman in traffic, one of those drivers who drive with their
eyes glued to the rear view mirror watching the car behind them. I
kept my distance, as I always do - never been a tailgater, despise
them myself - but as we approached the next intersection she slammed
on the brakes and came to a full stop on purpose and of course, I rear
ended her. She jumped out of her car with a pleased look on her face
and said "There! I hope that teaches you never to follow too close
again!"
I've encountered such psychos, never have hit one. Don't intend to. In
fact, that's how the brembo brakes on the mustang paid for themselves the
first night.
3- elect to go to trial, where the other driver will be summoned and
the police officer will also be there.
Odds are she won't show up.
Lots of people are telling me not to go to court, based on "rear ender
always loses, is always at fault no matter what." They tell me it's a
guaranteed losing situation for me. Plus, I'll have to pay the court
costs on top of the traffic ticket if I lose, which can be as high as
$500.
If she doesn't show, it's a win. Did she come up with a BS story for
jamming on the brakes?
|
| |
| |
| "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
|| >>> OP, talk to your insurance company.
| >
| >He doesnt have one, stupid.
|| I suggest you go back and very carefully read the original post before
| demonstrating your own lack of intelligence. The OP said he had liability
| insurance only, not collision.
Exactly...which means his insurance company WILL be paying out something to the
driver he hit if they choose not to fight it. But, it's largely their choice.
Of course, id the person he hit decides to sue...then I'm sure they will fight
it with statements like the ones she made. What happens in court is anybody's
guess though...it will probably be settled out of court (cheaper). I hope the
Op has adequate liability coverage amounts! I smell a rat here!
|
| |
| |
In article <aHvmd.42261$As5.27977@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, Travis
Jordan <no.one@no.net> wrote:
That sounds like such simple advice, but in the real world, it
isn't always possible. In bumper to bumper metro traffic, the
moment you open up even half of what is safe following distance,
some one is going to nudge their way in front of you, and then
you will have to stop to re-establish that half safe following
distance. In the end, folks will be pushing their way in front
of you creating an even more dangerous situation.
If other folks pull into your safe following space, you have to swallow your
anger and slow up, and re-establish your safe following space. If someone
else pulls into it again, you gotta swallow your anger again and
re-re-establish your safe following space.
Here in Texas, they tell ya in driver's safety class that everyone should
follow the 2 second rule. Of course, I'm the only one in the entire state
who complies with it--not so much out of good citizenship as not wanting to
rear end anyone else the way I did on the freeway 22 years ago (my head went
through the windshield, I had no seatbelt on and my ribs crushed the
steering wheel, and the entire right front side of the car was completely
smushed. After that accident, I learned the virtues of that extra space,
and if other people want to risk an accident, that's their perogitive.
But pretty much, unless you can show that the lady in front of you was
violating some law which precipitated the accident, they're gonna assume
that you were not able to avoid hitting her. And if you can't give a good
reason why you hit her (a patch of oil or ice on the road, your mind was
influenced by space aliens, etc), they're gonna assume you don't have an
excuse for the accident, and will hold you responsible.
Bottom line, keep a safe distance from other cars. If it upsets you when
other people pop into your safety space (and they will), you need to learn
to deal with that anger.
-Tock
|
| |
| |
|| James C. Reeves <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in
| message news:js2dnQEVi6nJAQfcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
| > Bob <bobnospam1@softhome.net> wrote
|| >> Insurance companies advertise that they have anti-fraud units
| >> to prosecute people that cause accidents like this then file claims.
|| >> OP, talk to your insurance company.
|| He doesnt have one, stupid.
What a wonderful arguement point. He has liability coverage that will be
paying something for the driver he hit. At best, repair costs. At worse
paying settlement if she decides to sue.
|| > That is the right course of action.
|| Not in this case.
Yes it is.
|| > Your Insurance company is there to represent you...
|| He doesnt have an insurance company for that type of damage.
I don't know what to say! Your lack of knowledge here is quite amazing. He
doesn't have colision to cover repair of *his* car. But, he DOES have
liability to cover repair of hers.
|| > they may want to pursue it at their risk and expense (or not).
|| Tad unlikely unless you believe in fairy insurance
| companys at the bottom of the garden or sumfin.
||I don't know much about fairy insurance, do you?
|
| |
| |
In article <Enxmd.17223$fC4.2947@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Tock
<tock@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Bottom line, keep a safe distance from other cars. If it upsets you when
other people pop into your safety space (and they will), you need to learn
to deal with that anger.
It isn't that I am upset with people pulling in front of me, it
is that I would be stopped dead in the traffic lane if I attempted
to let everyone in and keep that mythical safe following distance.
And if traffic did one of those sudden stops that we get in wave
like action on the freeways, I'd be far more likely to hit someone
who is pulling in front of me since I wouldn't have had a chance to
back off yet. It just isn't practical to keep what I consider to
be a reasonable following distance, and any attempt to do so either
impeads traffic or makes the situation even more dangerous. What
you have to do in the real world is keep a tighter following
distance, and be ready to stop when you need to. The real concern
is the person behind you, and if they are alert enough to stop, too.
-john-
--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================
|
| |
| |
I've encountered such psychos, never have hit one. Don't intend
to. In
fact, that's how the brembo brakes on the mustang paid for
themselves the
first night.
.....
If she doesn't show, it's a win. Did she come up with a BS
story for
jamming on the brakes?
I had a guy stop 30 feet back from 2 stop signs in a row. When I
flashed my light the second time, he put it in reverse and backed
into me. I called the police with the license #, and they sent me
the guy's name and address, saying I could sue him for damages.
FWIW.
Bob
|
| |
| |
ed wrote:
What should I do??? Is there anyone who thinks I actually might have
a chance of winning this???
not a chance in hell. she might have been doing it on purpose.
|
| |
| |
Travis Jordan wrote:
Just wait until her lawyer files suit. You haven't seen anything yet.
yup. she might have a case of "whiplash" all of a sudden, and 4 friends
who mysteriously were in the same car that no one ever saw at the time.
|
| |
| |
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
OP, talk to your insurance company.
I suggest you go back and very carefully read the original post before
demonstrating your own lack of intelligence. The OP said he had liability
insurance only, not collision.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|
| |
| |
|
| James C. Reeves <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in
| message news:js2dnQEVi6nJAQfcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
| > Bob <bobnospam1@softhome.net> wrote
|
| >> Insurance companies advertise that they have anti-fraud units
| >> to prosecute people that cause accidents like this then file claims.
|
| >> OP, talk to your insurance company.
|
| He doesnt have one, stupid.
What a wonderful arguement point.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
He has liability coverage that will be paying something
for the driver he hit. At best, repair costs. At worse
paying settlement if she decides to sue.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|
| > That is the right course of action.
|
| Not in this case.
Yes it is.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
| > Your Insurance company is there to represent you...
|
| He doesnt have an insurance company for that type of damage.
I don't know what to say!
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Your lack of knowledge here is quite amazing.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
He doesn't have colision to cover repair of *his* car.
But, he DOES have liability to cover repair of hers.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|
| > they may want to pursue it at their risk and expense (or not).
|
| Tad unlikely unless you believe in fairy insurance
| companys at the bottom of the garden or sumfin.
I don't know much about fairy insurance, do you?
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|
| |
| |
In article <cnvkp0phth6990mgo200lm5sjh3n9kvpri@4ax.com>, ed wrote:
I've encountered such psychos, never have hit one. Don't intend to. In
fact, that's how the brembo brakes on the mustang paid for themselves the
first night.
Odds are she won't show up.
If she doesn't show, it's a win.
Wrong.
Did she come up with a BS story for jamming on the brakes?
Doesnt need to.
|
| |
| |
| >
| > |
| > | James C. Reeves <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in
| > | message news:js2dnQEVi6nJAQfcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
| > | > Bob <bobnospam1@softhome.net> wrote
| > |
| > | >> Insurance companies advertise that they have anti-fraud units
| > | >> to prosecute people that cause accidents like this then file claims.
| > |
| > | >> OP, talk to your insurance company.
| > |
| > | He doesnt have one, stupid.
| >
| > What a wonderful arguement point.
|| Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|| > He has liability coverage that will be paying something
| > for the driver he hit. At best, repair costs. At worse
| > paying settlement if she decides to sue.
|| Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|| > |
| > | > That is the right course of action.
| > |
| > | Not in this case.
|| > Yes it is.
|| Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|| > | > Your Insurance company is there to represent you...
| > |
| > | He doesnt have an insurance company for that type of damage.
|| > I don't know what to say!
|| Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|| > Your lack of knowledge here is quite amazing.
|| Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|| > He doesn't have colision to cover repair of *his* car.
| > But, he DOES have liability to cover repair of hers.
|| Wota terminal @$#*wit.
|| > |
| > | > they may want to pursue it at their risk and expense (or not).
| > |
| > | Tad unlikely unless you believe in fairy insurance
| > | companys at the bottom of the garden or sumfin.
|| > I don't know much about fairy insurance, do you?
|| Wota terminal @$#*wit.
||You have a very large and diverse vocabulary, I see.
|
| |
| |
In article <2vvqp2F2njp3sU1@uni-berlin.de>, Rod Speed wrote:
If she doesn't show, it's a win.
Wrong.
Sorry it is. Ever been to traffic court? They ask for the other party in
collision tickets, when the other party isn't there the ticket is dismissed.
|
| |
| |
In article <2vvqp2F2njp3sU1@uni-berlin.de>, Rod Speed wrote:
If she doesn't show, it's a win.
Wrong.
Sorry it is. Ever been to traffic court? They ask for the other party in
collision tickets, when the other party isn't there the ticket is dismissed.
|
| |
| |
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Only one I see is you.
|
| |
| |
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Wota terminal @$#*wit.
Whose troll is this?
Bernard
|
| |
| |
| |
