If were the CGT buyer, I would kill the company for trying to weisel their way out of paying for the repairs... remember, in most states, its a law that if you rear end someone is is almost always your fault... and you should always keep a proper distance away from cars when you are stoped, so that if someone stalls or something like this, you have the proper reaction time to stop, and truckers should have double that distance... also, if the car behind you is not a proper distance behind you (usually 10 feet) and your rolll back into him because the hill was steep and you have a manual, then it is HIS fault.. that is why I always give people 10 feet when I am stoped on a hill, too bad no one else has the common curtesy to do so.

 

Correct, correct, correct.....oh, and did I say "Correct"?

Following too closely is the clear offender in this situation. The insurance company for the trucker will not (should not) be able to get out of this with a "He was partially at fault" type of argument. Any good attorney can shoot that down and it would be hard for a jury to overturn putting the trucker 100% at fault.

 

" and it would be hard for a jury to overturn putting the trucker 100% at fault."

lol, yeah they usually rule for the guys driving the $1/2 mil cars. if it were up to a jury, the result might be quite surprising in the message they would attempt to send.

 

Interesting. So Ben carrying additional insurance to cover shortfalls that may occur on the part of the person that hits HIM, is Ben taking personal responsibility? Not. Actually, Ben is taking personal responsibility away from the responsible party. I have no problem with Ben, or anyone carrying whatever insurance they see fit (heck, self insure), but lets not get carried away about who is responsible for what.

Ability does not equal responsibility. The lack of ability does not negate responsibility.

 

Insurance policies have liability limits for property damage. State required minimums are well below repair cost even for a minor damage on a very expensive exotic (enzo, cgt, etc). The only recourse the other party would have is to sue the individual for damages. But how many people can afford to pay $100K+ repair bill even over time?

I don't think there is a question of insurance company paying the damages up to the policy limit (after all they should've included that risk into their premium calculation), but insurance company will be off the hook once it paid what it is contractually obligated to.

That's why it's a prudent idea to carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage on your insurance policy. Because, even if court rules in favor of the "rich guy" the likelyhood of him actually seeing $100K from someone who makes $12K/yr is marginal at best.

And I agree that driving extraordinary expensive car comes at a cost. Adequate insurance coverage is part of that cost.

 

this is a completely different point though. You are speaking of the practical reality of owning a super exotic and the legal responsibility, not moral responsibility.

 

Yes I am being practical, but we do live in a real world. So what do you think should happen? Obviously, the best case scenario is that the person who caused the damage will pay for it. But what if they are not able to? I think that's the situation that's being discussed here. Also lets assume what occurred is an accident and not some malicious act of vandalism.

 

if he can't pay then he can't pay. I would have trouble taking a guy's house from him because he rear ended my car. HOWEVER, that does not change the fact that he is responsible. My picking up the extra would be an act of charity, not an act of accountability.

 

$125k body shop repair bill....

Damn rich people

 

I agree that people should be responsible... but within reason, which, of course, varies from one situation to another. But I disagree with the can't pay can't play. How many of us can really play by that definition? Imagine a situation where the owner of the original Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost decided to go for a sunday cruise and you happened to get in accident with him which is your fault. Now mind you, it's a $30 million car you just wrecked. Should you really be prepared to shall out millions of dollars everytime you go driving? Of course, not! The guy (well RR factory technically, it's all hypothetical anyway) owning the Rolls should probably take some precautions to protect his valuable possesion since it's unreasonable to expect average Joe Citizen to be prepared for such situation. And that's basically the point Ben & I are trying to make unless I'm missing something.

 

first of all, i said if he can't pay he can't PAY, not play. I'm not suggesting that someone not drive if they can't cover a $500k car. And you are missing something. You are missing that it is the owner's personal responsibility to cover his car from under-insured motorists. You are getting moral responsibility and fiscal responsibility mixed up.

 

A property owner's decision to insure property from loss due to the acts of others may be prudent if they do not have the resources or desire to cover the loss themslves.

However, I think what got this started was Ben's opinion that it is b.s for the truck driver's insurer to be responsible because he caused $125k of damage (because they were "barely rolling").

To quote Ben...
"Further, they RIGHTFULLY think it bullschit they should be on the hook for $125k for a barely rolling rear ender." (emphasis added) One wonders at what speed thier responsibility kicks in... 10 MPH?.. 15 MPH... 30?

In any event, If one TRULY has the means to drive a $500K car, one should have paid cash and should absorb the full loss oneself without offset from the poor bastard that creamed 'em or burdening an insurance company... otherwise they are just a poser... (J/K)

 

oops my bad. i re-read ur post now. so i think everyone basically says the same thing then, except its really not you picking up the extra but your insurance which isn't a charity type of business. but yeah one should be responsible for their actions - i absolutely agree with that. responsibility may not equate to full reimbursement though for reasons already discussed.

 

What you guys seem to be ignoring is that in the U.S. we are the only country with generous bankruptcy laws which protect broke people from creditors.

Rich guy gets hit, sues trucker for gap damage amount that his insurance won't cover, gets judgment or settlement which throws trucker into bankruptcy. Bankruptcy court protects trucker and gives the big **** YOU to creditors. Trucker's credit is dinged for 10 years, and life goes on. Rich guy's insurance premium goes up anyway for some idiot's mistake.

Welcome to America.

 

I thought it was 5-7 years for no credit not 10