Insurance Question

[Jim O'Bryan]

Shawn

or anyone else.

Let's say someone hit my car. They said file with my insurance company who will then contact theirs.

Will this affect my premiums?


.

[Jeff Endress]

Jim

ALAWAYS notify your carrier of any loss, but if the accident wasn't your fault, the claim should be submitted to the other driver's company....going under your own policy only makes sense if the other driver is uninsured or there is a liability question for the insurers to sort through. If the other company declines, then you're forced into submitting to yours.

But if you have to go through your company, you'll eat your deductible, whereas if the other company pays, you won't.

Jeff

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim
But if you have to go through your company, you'll eat your deductible, whereas if the other company pays, you won't.

Jeff

Well instead of "car" substitute "house" instead of other driver substitute city of Lakewood.

As we remember a city tree hit my house. I have repeatedly tried to get someone from the city to come out and appraise the damage. The answer is, just have your insurance company pay you and we will deal with them.

I have never filed a claim, and really do not understand why I would have to file this one.

They have been out to cite me, they have threatened with legal actions but no adjuster.

FWIW


.

[Shawn Juris]

In my experience with tree damage, the limb that causes the damage is considered a falling object and is covered under the homeowner's policy (assuming it is not a basic policy and includes this peril or cause of loss). There may be more to consider in your case but that's the general approach. So whether it was a tree on your neighbor's property or a tree which is considered owned by the city, the property owner is faced with the bill. I suppose if the city or a neighbor were willing to be neighborly and agree to compensate the homeowner there could some something worked out but based on the language of the contracts, there wouldn't be anything to say that they are obligated to do so. Maybe Jeff has more insight into subrogation of these types of situations.
From first hand experience as well it certainly gives more motivation for a homeowner to keep tabs on their neighbors dead limbs. I know that we've all been looking up recently and comparing proposals to prune or take down some troubled trees.

[Dennis J Kampe]

Suspect - Act of God defense to be used if necessary for City Of lakewood . Whereas assuming God not driving car then civil remedies available .

So City will claim Act of God caused damage and like pot holes etc causing car damage - unless City officially notified in writing ( and given 24? hrs to repair ) or officially logged in to service dept / council compliants - you loss , other than through your home insurance with deductibles etc

Suggest Move to Parma - No car damage possible as roads cannot be driven at speeds in excess of 5 mph , and fewer and fewer trees "available" to fall on houses .

Note Apache 2 spell check not working for me for weeks - prehaps Others experienced same problem ?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Note Apache 2 spell check not working for me for weeks - prehaps Others experienced same problem ?

Dennis thanks for the heads up.

As for the Act of God...

the city has been told repeatedly that the Silver Maples next to my house are DEAD! or at least so close they are a peril to life and property. Certainly more than dogs!

That the lifespan of the trees is about 65 years and almost all are 75+. One response from a high ranking city official is we cannot afford to take them down so will deal with it when they fall.

To me that would take GOD out of the equation and move it towards negligence.

I could be wrong.


.

[Brad Hutchison]

So whether it was a tree on your neighbor's property or a tree which is considered owned by the city, the property owner is faced with the bill.

Just out of curiosity, does this whole dynamic change if the tree falls on your house while someone is cutting it down? Or if a truck hit it or something? I would think so. Maybe that's why the city is waiting for it to fall on it's own.

[Bryan Schwegler]

Shawn

or anyone else.

Let's say someone hit my car. They said file with my insurance company who will then contact theirs.

Will this affect my premiums?


.

Whether you contact them or not, they will find out since insurance companies share data so either way, it could affect your premium depending on how your insurance company underwrites.

But I agree with Jeff, best course of action is to always notify your company.

[Will Brown]

I suppose different insurance companies can handle it differently.

With my company, if I file through them, I am limited to the coverage in my policy. They pay, less the deductible, then collect from the other insurance company and refund me my deductible. I get better service from them, in part because they are an excellent company, but in part because I am their customer and they want to keep me. A disadvantage would be if they value my extremely well kept and low mileage car less than I value it; its pretty much their call as to the value of the car, as my contract says.

On the other hand, if I file with the other driver's company, there is a good chance I will be treated like an ugly stepchild. They will be hard to contact, and will make, after a lot of delay, a lowball offer (it won't sound like an offer; it will sound like a final decision), and the check may be in the mail for a long time. However, they can't impose the deductible from my policy on me (not that they wouldn't try), and they can't impose their evaluation of the amount of damages (from my contract) on me, so I can hold out for the full value of my cherry car (if they say they can't pay it, tell them OK, they can just repair it, or buy me a replacement car in the same cherry condition). Too often, this becomes a lengthy and unpleasant process, and you are without your money or your car during it (hint, at the first sign of delay, ask them for a comparable loaner until they have settled the claim; also ask them what the limitations of his policy are, as some people carry minimal coverage, and if your damages are more than you can get under his policy, filing under your own might be a better option) . Your ace in the hole is that you can sue, and most likely his insurer will have to defend him, which can be a major expense for them, so they would rather settle for a little more than risk a suit. I wouldn't mention litigation as a negotiation tactic, though. They know you would have to pay for your own attorney, which can be a substantial amount out of your pocket.

I've not had many claims, but if it were me I would advise my insurer, but defer my decision as to who to claim with until I had an opportunity to talk to his insurer. If I evaluated his insurer as responsible and cooperative, I would file with them.

My company dings me only for at-fault accidents, so in this case, they would not increase my premiums. I think that is fairly standard practice, at least with respect to auto insurance.

[Shawna Shepherd]

There is also some strangeness when it has to do with the damage being caused by city property. We had a cushman hit our car several years ago, in our drive way and we had to pay everything. I can't remember what it was called but it boiled down to the city not being liable.

[Bryan Schwegler]

On the other hand, if I file with the other driver's company, there is a good chance I will be treated like an ugly stepchild.

That's actually not usually the case. The worse they treat you, the more likely you are to retain a lawyer which is the last thing they want. Their goal would be to settle the claim as quickly as possible with you to limit the possibility of legal action.

[Jeff Endress]

There is also some strangeness when it has to do with the damage being caused by city property. We had a cushman hit our car several years ago, in our drive way and we had to pay everything. I can't remember what it was called but it boiled down to the city not being liable.

It's an age old doctrine, passed down to us through the English Common Law system that is the foundation of our legal precedents, call Sovreign Immunity. While there are all kinds of ins and outs, the basic premise is that a governmental body cannot be sued for damages caused in carrying out governmental functions.

Jeff

[Shawn Juris]

In the case of the tree, it seems that this was possibly an issue of maintenance over the city's obligation to file a claim with their insurance carrier. That is assuming that the tree truly was considered city property and their responsibility, again I reference the hazy line for sidewalks & treelawns. While Jim told them the tree was dead and a potential problem, it seems that it may not be enough because he's not a tree expert. I suppose if you have an arborist out then maybe and that's a huge maybe you would be able to collect if the tree later fall and caused damage.

I've also heard the sovreign immunity defense in the case of an auto accident with a city vehicle. If memory serves while the city does not have to pay and the claim goes through the other driver's policy, I seem to remember it being treated differently. An unsubrogated, not at fault accident maybe, but that seems strange. From what I understand in briefly looking over some of the background on this, the city cannot be sued unless it waives its rights of sovreign immunity. So, to take a page from Hollywood, when the maverick cops have just blown up half the town and caused 50 auto accidents and the Captain scolds them for costing the taxpayers millions in losses, is he just blowing smoke??? Why should the captain care how much Will Smith or Mel Gibson damaged in the pursuit if they have sovreign immunity? Ah ha, Hollywood mistake.

[Ryan Salo]

It's an age old doctrine, passed down to us through the English Common Law system that is the foundation of our legal precedents, call Sovreign Immunity. While there are all kinds of ins and outs, the basic premise is that a governmental body cannot be sued for damages caused in carrying out governmental functions.

I have heard that RTA has the same thing. I was at a body shop in Lakewood and the manager there pointed out a car that was side swiped by a bus that was waiting to get fixed because RTA was refusing to pay and the driver didn't have full coverage.

Jeff, do you know if RTA really has this immunity?

[Dee Krupp]

It's an age old doctrine, passed down to us through the English Common Law system that is the foundation of our legal precedents, call Sovreign Immunity. While there are all kinds of ins and outs, the basic premise is that a governmental body cannot be sued for damages caused in carrying out governmental functions.

I have heard that RTA has the same thing. I was at a body shop in Lakewood and the manager there pointed out a car that was side swiped by a bus that was waiting to get fixed because RTA was refusing to pay and the driver didn't have full coverage.

Jeff, do you know if RTA really has this immunity?

I would venture to guess that the RTA driver is denying fault.