Hawkeye the disability cheat is looking for more money.

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8864517

Hawkeye-X  (1000+ posts)          Mon Aug-02-10 12:25 PM
Original message
Question about car insurance "settlement" - story here
      

I believe I told the story here a few weeks ago, and got castigated on the fact that I thought that the woman should have not been driving due to age (she is 78 at the time of the accident) - then DU'ers reminded me that my own grandfather was still driving up until he was about 90 years old and I felt like an hypocrite, and I accepted that, and kind of dropped the story.

Now something just came up, and I wanted your opinion about settling with the insurance company.

Let me rehash the story:

My wife was on the left side of the turn towards the I-25 entrance ramp. This traffic light has a pattern on when they usually let the turnings through, goes like this: First cycle - all green, no turns allowed - 2nd cycle, the eastbound traffic light goes red, third cycle, turnoff arrows comes on. My wife was actually on the 2nd left lane, and it was clear (as confirmed by two witnesses) that the eastbound traffic light was red, and the turnoff lights were on, so my wife was legally allowed to go. However, the woman in a Cadillac sedan ran through the red light and smashed to my wife. Side airbags were deployed on our car, both passenger front and back side doors heavily damaged. The Cadillac is a total loss (completely damaged the front hood and destroyed the engine, leaking fluids all over the road). Both drivers were checked on scene, my wife reporting no injuries, but a day later, she sustained a painful muscle sprain on the left side of her neck, which she had to take OTC inflammatory agents (Motrin) until she could see her doctor - confirmed a muscle sprain and has documented it. The agencies interviewed everybody, and one thing that stood out to me was that the woman did not see the traffic lights at all. That was a key admission to the accident.

Fast forward two weeks later

My mother just got a call from the other driver's insurance agency and confirmed 100% liability on her part based on the accident report. They have offered to pay for the rental while our car is undergoing repairs which is estimated to be ready in two weeks. Because of the injury, there was an medical settlement offer, at a $600 to take it. My question to you - should I take this offer or do you think it's too low and go for more? What do you think I should do? This is our first time we are settling this (my wife has no more pain after three weeks of treatment with Motrin). We are asking a friend who is a former insurance agent and another friend who is a retired magistrate for their advice.

But, I'd like your feedback as well.

Hawkeye-X

 

[thundley4]

First he says the car is a total loss then claims the repairs will take two weeks. WTF?

[TheSarge]

First he says the car is a total loss then claims the repairs will take two weeks. WTF?

No the woman that hit his wife was driving the Caddy that was totalled.

[thundley4]

No the woman that hit his wife was driving the Caddy that was totalled.

Oh.  I tend to zone out and skim through these long screeds by DUmmies.

[BEG]

Why the heck is his mother getting calls from the other lady's insurance?

[DumbAss Tanker]

Why the heck is his mother getting calls from the other lady's insurance?

Probably still on his Mommy's policy.

 

[formerlurker]

Why the heck is his mother getting calls from the other lady's insurance?

 

Nice catch.

[formerlurker]

$600 for no treatment?   take it, cause I wouldn't have even offered you that much. 

[formerlurker]

Actually, scratch that -- as his wife hasn't met the tort threshold in MA, so she would have received nothing.    No idea what state this is in, but I question the offer -- why?  

[Karin]

He's in Colorado.  Money grubbing asshat.   I recommend to him that he go for more.  Put the wife up on the stand in court (insurance companies can afford a boatload of lawyers), walk away with nothing.  Call attention to yourself so the Disability Board starts sniffing around. 

[Ballygrl]

Why the heck is his mother getting calls from the other lady's insurance?

Hmm, so is it the Mother's car? and she's paying the insurance?

[Carl]

Hmm, so is it the Mother's car? and she's paying the insurance?

Don`t forget he "works" for a couple of businesses his father owns so no doubt to keep the disability con going the car is registered and insured outside his family.

[Karin]

This grown "man" is completely dependent on his parents.  They star in many of his posts.  I'm considering him for my list. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

This grown "man" is completely dependent on his parents.  They star in many of his posts.  I'm considering him for my list. 

Another fine specimen of Liberal manhood.  You ladies here definitely picked the right side.

 

[AllosaursRus]

They only offered 600 bucks?

"Toots" got T-Boned last year and they offered us $6700. Must not be much of an injury or loss!

What was she drivin', a 65 Rambler?

[Chris_]

A surplus-auction Dodge Intrepid or a minivan scrounged off Craigslist I could believe, but a running '65 Rambler would be worth a lot more than $600.

[DumbAss Tanker]

They only offered 600 bucks?

"Toots" got T-Boned last year and they offered us $6700. Must not be much of an injury or loss!

What was she drivin', a 65 Rambler?

I believe the $600 is for PI/P&S, they're picking up the repair and replacement rental separately as I read it.  $600 is peanuts for the insurer, it's a sound nominal settlement to establish good faith and solid legal consideration for getting her to sign off a waiver if she has no real, substantiated injuries. 

[Texacon]

If they take it you can bet that 6 months down the road there will be another thread about how they should have never signed because now the 'wife' is totally disabled and has to wait on her SSI to kick in because that's the only way they can survive.

KC

[DumbAss Tanker]

True.  And that's exactly why a no-injury accident is worth 600 bucks out of the insurer's coffee fund to get the chiseler of their trail.

[formerlurker]

He's in Colorado.  Money grubbing asshat.   I recommend to him that he go for more.  Put the wife up on the stand in court (insurance companies can afford a boatload of lawyers), walk away with nothing.  Call attention to yourself so the Disability Board starts sniffing around. 

He is lying then as Colorado has a $2,500 tort threshold to file a suit for personal injury.  His wife did not treat.  No claim.   

 

[formerlurker]

True.  And that's exactly why a no-injury accident is worth 600 bucks out of the insurer's coffee fund to get the chiseler of their trail.

I never would have paid it. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

So I gather.  It's three hours worth of contracted attorney time to corporate, though, and if this idiot decides to go to a PI attorney in a 100% at-fault case against their insured, they'll waste twice that much in an afternoon just in trying to get him to shut up and go away.

[formerlurker]

So I gather.  It's three hours worth of contracted attorney time to corporate, though, and if this idiot decides to go to a PI attorney in a 100% at-fault case against their insured, they'll waste twice that much in an afternoon just in trying to get him to shut up and go away.

Why on earth would this go to suit?   They have no suit by the way as she has not reached  tort threshold. 

[Tucker]

They only offered 600 bucks?

"Toots" got T-Boned last year and they offered us $6700. Must not be much of an injury or loss!

What was she drivin', a 65 Rambler?

I got ass ended last year. Totaled his car. I told his insurance company that I had no lasting injuries and wouldn't file any claim for personal injury. :innocent:

[franksolich]

This grown "man" is completely dependent on his parents.  They star in many of his posts.  I'm considering him for my list.

The cross-eyed Iowa primitive's always been a good choice for Top DUmmie, or primitive, but voters tend to forget about him when time to cast their ballots.

The cross-eyed Iowa primitive, who's lived in Denver (moving there from Iowa) for the past two or three years, is allegedly an ex-con, and a bad one.  Or at least that's the impression the cross-eyed Iowa primitive likes to give.

It's the cross-eyed Iowa primitive who's in the past threatened to "shut down" (by both legal and illegal means) web-sites the primitives find offensive, from our old home to the now-defunct Scamdy.

He's a pretty rotund guy, round as a beach ball, younger than most primitives (in his late 30s, early 40s), and near-sighted.

The cross-eyed Iowa primitive was the one who organized the "get together" for the primitives during the 2008 Democrat National Convention in Denver, but he neglected to invite the homeless Nemesis of the Bostonian Drunkard, the bobbling primitive, who lives in Denver.

The cross-eyed Iowa primitive is a snob, an elitist.  When the cross-eyed Iowa primitive's parents (or parents-in-law, I forget which) took the cross-eyed Iowa primitive and his wife to Las Vegas for Thanksgiving 2009, he never dropped in to visit the gigantic primitive, whose bathroom was flooding, ruining his, and Jeanette's, own Thanksgiving.  (It needs pointed out additionally that when the die alte Sau, the dysmenopausal Kansas school teacher, the "Proud2BLibKansan" primitive, and her husband went to Las Vegas for Christmas that same year, they too shunned the gigantic primitive.)

The cross-eyed Iowa primitive has tried selling "pyramid schemes" on Skins's island, and failed.

Oddly, for someone allegedly poor, the cross-eyed Iowa primitive, is usually the first to offer to send a donation to a beleaguered Democrat, or even to the Democrat party itself.  That's "offer;" I dunno if he ever follows through, though.

Again, the cross-eyed Iowa primitive's a good choice, an excellent choice, for inclusion among the top primitives, or DUmmies, but damn, even franksolich tends to forget to remember him late November, early December, when voting takes place.