all good..he just sings falsetto now.
|
|
|
OUCH!! Guy rides into the ride of the guard rail on the shoulder.
- Thread starter kiwi
- Start date
all good..he just sings falsetto now.
We all pay a little extra next year on that "uninsured motorist" line of our insurance policies. That's how.
In this particular situation? No claims get filed. If the guy who hit the barrier is uninsured, he gets zip. If the one who hit his crashed bike is uninsured, that one gets zero. If the one who got tangled in the pile-up is uninsured, that one gets zilch.
If some or all of them are insured, they're probably all getting a piece of fault assigned to them ... sure, the initial crash was with the one hitting the barrier, but the subsequent ones had some "failure to drive in marked lane" / "follow too close" aspects to them, at a minimum ...
How so? If none of them are insured then there's no cost for insurance companies to recover.
I mean it's simple; insurance cost = insurance company anticipated claims expenses + profit margin. That's all.
Yeah. The uninsured motorist angle would make sense if, in the process of crashing, they did damage to a passing car whose driver was properly insured and whose car needed fixing. But a bunch of knobs crashing into fixed objects and each other seems to be a zero-cost deal to the insurance industry.
Property taxes might inch up though: the bullnose of that guardrail may well need a visit from a crew and possible replacement and that stuff costs money...
I was thinking in case of a serious injury such as paralysis, caused by another, when neither is insured?
Would one possibly sue the other, only to have them file for bankruptcy?
Even with damage to the two other bikes that the fellow took out, that could end up costing thousands, even if the bikes weren't recovered by the police.
Would one possibly sue the other, only to have them file for bankruptcy?
Even with damage to the two other bikes that the fellow took out, that could end up costing thousands, even if the bikes weren't recovered by the police.
Roadghost
Well-known member
It's the U.S. where everybody sues everybody and insurance pays up to what you're covered for. Then you pay the rest. Not sure if these bums are sophisticated enough to see a lawyer though. The colossal stupidity of riding in a pack, on a shoulder, not paying attention, in beer shorts and a t-shirt slamming into something and wiping out another 3 clowns who were following too closely to stop well, you dance to the devil's tune, pay the devil's price.
yodude
Banned
whoever did the damage gets that bill, or ins
Last edited:
yodude
Banned
lawyers would have to chime in but you can end up with mthly payments for decades or more, or until an assessed damages obligation is met,
as long as there is income coming in, i doubt a bankruptcy would end it, prob there are adjustments that can be factored in for personal circumstances related to income changes like job loss, medical etc,
you will owe what you owe and it can certainly be or get ugly, a fundamental of having ins is not ending up there,
then again, if you deal in dope or cash lol, not necessarily a huge deal or legit things may not matter much & there is then likely more focus on other stuff, eitherway is 2 paths down the same road
Last edited:
True enough, I was generalizing, admittedly not applicable to this situation...but had there been another vehicle involved which *was* insured (even if the rider wasn't), then it would.
Otherwise, the cost to area taxpayers could be less than a penny per person. I'd gladly pay a full penny for every ****** who impales himself like that.
Payout only made upon review of video evidence
BigEvilDoer
Well-known member
Only thing I have any sympathy for in those videos are the poor bikes.
Guy who initially crashed has a plate, so likely has some form of insurance.
Guys who were involved afterwards will receive 50/50 at fault by insurance (if they have any). Same as if we're driving down the highway, get rear ended, and end up hitting the car in front of you. You get tagged for 50% fault as you must have been following too close to avoid a secondary collision. The only time this isn't true is if you were completely stopped, then get hit and pushed into another vehicle.
Guy who initially crashed has a plate, so likely has some form of insurance.
Guys who were involved afterwards will receive 50/50 at fault by insurance (if they have any). Same as if we're driving down the highway, get rear ended, and end up hitting the car in front of you. You get tagged for 50% fault as you must have been following too close to avoid a secondary collision. The only time this isn't true is if you were completely stopped, then get hit and pushed into another vehicle.
I like the way you drive a bargain LOL!
yodude
Banned
good to know is if you let someone use/drive your uninsured vehicle and they get in an at fault accident. you're on the hook for liability
better also have a legit license
booze & borrowing with ins, who pays..
http://www.millerthomson.com/en/blog/ontario-insurance-litigation-blog/2013-archives/owner-vicariously-liable-for-drunk-drivers
[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/to-lend-or-not-to-lend-your-car/article4452856/
[/URL]
better also have a legit license
booze & borrowing with ins, who pays..
http://www.millerthomson.com/en/blog/ontario-insurance-litigation-blog/2013-archives/owner-vicariously-liable-for-drunk-drivers
[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/to-lend-or-not-to-lend-your-car/article4452856/
[/URL]
Last edited:
whats your best guess?
|
|
|
|
|