• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Adjuster ignoring us

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

jack153

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

What happen when the adjuster ignores my lawyer phone calls what and whats the next step, and why he ignores us?
 


justalayman

Senior Member
wow, I know I urge people to be brief but seriously, this is a bit too brief.

Flesh out the situation a bit.
 

las365

Senior Member
https://forum.freeadvice.com/auto-accidents-vehicle-claims-1/how-much-does-my-case-worth-578942.html
 

jack153

Member
My accident was hit and run, in the beginning his insurance denied their driver was at the seen... I filed for small claim court against the driver damages for my vehicle since it was under 6000... The driver never showed up I won the case and his insurance paid for the damages 3500. Now, by them paying, their are admitting that thier are at fault. My lawyer and I pursuing for bodily injuries but thier adjuster never respond back, completely ignores us... Whats the next step?
 

jack153

Member
What's your point sending me an old link of me asking a question... If you don't have somthing smart to say just click next thread
 

HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
What's your point sending me an old link of me asking a question... If you don't have somthing smart to say just click next thread
He didn't "send" you anything - he posted it.

The reason for that was that you asked a question with no supporting information. If you want a question answered you have to provide some more information - apparently you totally ignored justalayman's comment.

las365 went above and beyond what I would have done by searching for your old posts and providing that information as background - because you failed to do so.

Drop the attitude and pay attention to what's going on here. YOU are the one seeking help.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Your lawyer will know the answer to your questions. I'm sure he enjoys your pleasant demeanor.
 

jack153

Member
You right I came off wrong, if he would of gave the link an introduction i wouldn't job to conclusion... I am sorry to those who got offended and mad...
 

justalayman

Senior Member
You right I came off wrong, if he would of gave the link an introduction i wouldn't job to conclusion... I am sorry to those who got offended and mad...
that is just one reason you are urged to not post multiple threads on the same issue. Personally, given the lack of info and the fact I was not going to chase your other thread(s) for information, I simply do go on to the next thread.

You should have posted this in your other thread or at least YOU should have provided the link.
 

latigo

Senior Member
My accident was hit and run, in the beginning his insurance denied their driver was at the seen... I filed for small claim court against the driver damages for my vehicle since it was under 6000... The driver never showed up I won the case and his insurance paid for the damages 3500. Now, by them paying, their are admitting that thier are at fault. My lawyer and I pursuing for bodily injuries but thier adjuster never respond back, completely ignores us... Whats the next step?
Perhaps it is because the attorneys for the insurance company understand “issue preclusion” and “collateral estoppel” and avoidance of multiple litigation as inherent in the principle of RES JUDICATA and your attorney does not?

RES JUDICATA is Latin for "the thing has been decided"

It is a rule of law that holds that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit.

Please make note of the phrase “that could have been litigated in that suit”. Because, to my limited knowledge of New York law, there is nothing that would have prevented you from joining your claim for personal injuries in the same small claims action in which you recovered a judgment compensating your for the property damage.

And if that is so, then seemingly the above mentioned principles preclude you from bringing another lawsuit against the same defendant involving the same vehicle accident.

If it isn’t so, then have your attorney explain why.
 
W

Willlyjo

Guest
Perhaps it is because the attorneys for the insurance company understand “issue preclusion” and “collateral estoppel” and avoidance of multiple litigation as inherent in the principle of RES JUDICATA and your attorney does not?

RES JUDICATA is Latin for "the thing has been decided"

It is a rule of law that holds that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit.

Please make note of the phrase “that could have been litigated in that suit”. Because, to my limited knowledge of New York law, there is nothing that would have prevented you from joining your claim for personal injuries in the same small claims action in which you recovered a judgment compensating your for the property damage.

And if that is so, then seemingly the above mentioned principles preclude you from bringing another lawsuit against the same defendant involving the same vehicle accident.

If it isn’t so, then have your attorney explain why.
Sorry, but I see no Res Judicata here. The claim for pain and suffering is much different than a claim for property damages. The OP most likely has a claim for pain and suffering that is over small claims limits. A claim for property damages was all that was litigated in small claims court. If the OP would have litigated for compensation concerning pain and suffering as well, then it would have been considered Res Judicata to file any actions in Superior Court concerning the same issues already decided in the small claims area. :)
 

latigo

Senior Member
Sorry, but I see no Res Judicata here. The claim for pain and suffering is much different than a claim for property damages. The OP most likely has a claim for pain and suffering that is over small claims limits. A claim for property damages was all that was litigated in small claims court. If the OP would have litigated for compensation concerning pain and suffering as well, then it would have been considered Res Judicata to file any actions in Superior Court concerning the same issues already decided in the small claims area. :)
OF COURSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

Any fool would know that a cause of action for property damage involves some elements of proof differing from those related to a cause of action for injuries to the person.

But when the two “different”, but related claims or causes of action are based on identical factual circumstances - such as here a single tortuous act – and involve the same tortfeasor, then BOTH CLAIMS MUST BE JOINED AND PROSECUTED IN SAME LAW SUIT! Period!
____________________

Now if you have any recognized case law out of New York that under the same circumstances at hand rejects the principal of re judicata, which (again) is universally defined as follows:

"A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit,"

And by rejecting I mean case law that allows a person that has suffered both (1) property loss and (2) personal injuries as a result of a single tortuous act to bifurcate claims (1) and (2) and have them litigated in two separate lawsuits against the same defendant or defendants . . .

Then let those authorities speak for your argument, which I personally deem to be unschooled and legally unsound.
________________________

The only question I see is whether or not the OP was somehow precluded from asserting both claims in one small claims filing. Or perhaps, a New York small claims judgment is not afforded the necessary dignity to qualify as a final judgment on the merits. (Which would seem inexplicable.)

Such principles or res judicata, collateral estoppel, the “entire controversy doctrine”, are not solely designed to bring an end to litigation but as public policy to help unburden the court system, and to protect litigants against increased costs and the vexation of multiple lawsuits.

A policy which seems to have escaped your understanding.

One final comment.

I will guarantee you that if the defendant in the small claims case that suffered a judgment favoring the OP and compensating him for the damage to his vehicle, were to refile a lawsuit against the OP seeking to have his property damage compensated, the OP would be screaming RES JUDICATA! And the same if that defendant were to sue the OP for personal injuries which he could have cross claimed in small claims.
 
W

Willlyjo

Guest
OF COURSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

Any fool would know that a cause of action for property damage involves some elements of proof differing from those related to a cause of action for injuries to the person.

But when the two “different”, but related claims or causes of action are based on identical factual circumstances - such as here a single tortuous act – and involve the same tortfeasor, then BOTH CLAIMS MUST BE JOINED AND PROSECUTED IN SAME LAW SUIT! Period!
____________________

Now if you have any recognized case law out of New York that under the same circumstances at hand rejects the principal of re judicata, which (again) is universally defined as follows:

"A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit,"

And by rejecting I mean case law that allows a person that has suffered both (1) property loss and (2) personal injuries as a result of a single tortuous act to bifurcate claims (1) and (2) and have them litigated in two separate lawsuits against the same defendant or defendants . . .

Then let those authorities speak for your argument, which I personally deem to be unschooled and legally unsound.
________________________

The only question I see is whether or not the OP was somehow precluded from asserting both claims in one small claims filing. Or perhaps, a New York small claims judgment is not afforded the necessary dignity to qualify as a final judgment on the merits. (Which would seem inexplicable.)

Such principles or res judicata, collateral estoppel, the “entire controversy doctrine”, are not solely designed to bring an end to litigation but as public policy to help unburden the court system, and to protect litigants against increased costs and the vexation of multiple lawsuits.

A policy which seems to have escaped your understanding.

One final comment.

I will guarantee you that if the defendant in the small claims case that suffered a judgment favoring the OP and compensating him for the damage to his vehicle, were to refile a lawsuit against the OP seeking to have his property damage compensated, the OP would be screaming RES JUDICATA! And the same if that defendant were to sue the OP for personal injuries which he could have cross claimed in small claims.
You are contruing Res Judicata way too liberally! If property damage is compensated via small claims judgment, then it can't be re-litigated, period via Res Judicata! If the defendant (the one at fault) should file suit seeking compensation for property damages, it would be denied because the defendant is at fault, not because of Res Judicata! You're right about one thng, your knowledge of Res Judicata is limited. :rolleyes:
 

latigo

Senior Member
You are contruing Res Judicata way too liberally! If property damage is compensated via small claims judgment, then it can't be re-litigated, period via Res Judicata! If the defendant (the one at fault) should file suit seeking compensation for property damages, it would be denied because the defendant is at fault, not because of Res Judicata! You're right about one thng, your knowledge of Res Judicata is limited. :rolleyes:

Denying the hypothetical defendant/claimant the right to seek a judgment against the OP in another tribunal for his property damage because he was found at fault in the first lawsuit WOULD NOT BE APPLYING THE PRINCIPAL OF RES JUDICATA?!

And you have the audacity to say that my understanding of the principal is limited?

I have a rule I'm going invoke. I don't debate an unarmed opponent! So toodle-oo!
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
The law does not require another person insurance adjuster talk to you. Your recourse is to sue them, if you feel you have a case. Let your lawyer handle it.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top