12733922, perhaps I misunderstood your intentions|
Posted by lonesome_d, Mon Feb-23-15 01:40 PM
>i'm not sure where you're getting that from.
if you're not injured, and her insurer has fulfilled its property damage liability obligations by paying for the repairs to your vehicle, for what damages are you considering suing? I don't see that there's a whole lot you can claim.
Most people, in this scenario, claim injury (especially soft tissue injury which is hard to prove/disprove). I was under the impression that this was your most likely course of action, as her insurer has already fulfilled its other obligations to you.
And despite the fact that fabricating an injury where none truly exists actually works in most cases where people aren't looking for significant gains (plenty of insurers feel it's easier to pay off a 'nuisance claim' than it is to fight it or, even better, prosecute it as fraud), it's still fraud to misrepresent oneself as injured when one is not injured.
>thing to go around suing people just because, but in *this*
>she blindly/belligerently blamed the accident on me, later to
>out, it was her fault.
Unfortunately, you can't really sue someone just for being an asshole. Most people, when at fault in an accident, will be belligerent assholes and blame the person they hit. Most people are assholes in general when behind a steering wheel.
>meanwhile, $6,000 worth of repairs to
>car and the moment this shit goes on a carfax report, it's a
>goner. i'm assed out.
Not much you can do about that; if you have an at-fault accident that damages your car, your insurance pays cost to repair or ACV for both your car (if you carry physical damage) and the car(s) you hit, to your policy limits for property damage coverage. No coverage exists for decrease in resale value*, whether first- or third-party, and I've never heard of anyone suing another for that. You could try it, though; I'd be interested in hearing how it goes if you do.
*Actually, I believe this coverage can be gotten on collector-car policies, but I'm assuming that's not what we're talking about here.
>it's not right and i'm willing to bet you that if i was at
>she would go for everything that she could get.
I agree that it's not right for someone to be an asshole, or that her negligence should cause you difficulties, but I still don't really see grounds for a suit. And yeah she probably would sue if the positions are reversed - plenty of people would. But is that a good reason to sue her? And again, what will you claim as grounds for suit, if you're not injured?
A thought - If you can show that the work missed was due to the accident, there's a possibility that you could get her insurer to pay you for your lost wages. But that's the only other thing I can think of that would be available for you to claim, short of being injured. But that's something to address with her insurer's adjustor, not sue over.
You mention your PIP above, and how that would come into play is going to depend a bit on what state you're in, but regardless is only applicable if you're claiming injury. If you do wind up claiming an injury, and her Bodily Injury limits are low and tap out, you could then bring a claim against your own policy's Underinsured Motorists coverage, but that's probably getting ahead of the situation.
>i could have
>gotten really wild with it and claimed that i was injured
>i did no such thing.
And this is why Bin and Fishgrease above both stress the importance, if you intend to sue regardless, of setting up a reasonable scenario that involves you being injured.