His fault, no insurance, I only have liability

[ToneCapone]

What is the name of your state? Alabama

I was hit and the guy has no insurance. Its his fault and my car is old so my damage estimates are more that the car is worth. This guy tried to hit and run on the scene but I kept him from going anywhere. He said he was the owner of some business and he would pay for damages. He is offering to pay us about half of what the estimated damages are. Except this car was in great shape for its age and had very low mileage. I was hoping things would be easier but I may have to get a little stern if I'm going to get my car repaired correctly. He also told my wife he wanted us to sign some contract he had written to release him from all liability once he gave us a check. Of course I knew he would try something like this. So now I think I am going to offer him to either pay what I need to get my car fixed or see him in court. I know the guy has no insurance or at least did not at the time of the accident. He may try to forge some documents to prove otherwise but I know he had no insurance. If I take him to court are all court cost his? Since he is a business man and should have money should he fear going to court with no insurance? What should I do? I want to make sure we do things on my terms and not on his. Should I take him to court or settle for more money?

 

[ToneCapone]

Can anybody offer advice on this? Thanks

 

[mykoleary]

Hows about you wait more than 3 hours for an answer??

 

[RunningOnEmpty]

You are legally entitled to the fair market value of your vehicle, not what it would cost to repair it. The guy does not have to pay you more than the car was worth before it was wrecked.

And of course he wants you to sign a release after he pays you. Wouldn't you want the same? Sounds reasonable to me.

The two of you just need to come to an agreement of what the actual value of your vehicle was, prior to the accident. Provide him with the same supporting evidence that you will have to show the judge if you elect to pursue through court.

 

[JETX]

"And of course he wants you to sign a release after he pays you. Wouldn't you want the same? Sounds reasonable to me."
*** More STUPID advice from 'AlwaysEmpty'.

Do NOT sign any release until the check clears or you get a cashiers check. Part of the risks if you do:
- Stop pay on the check.
- NSF on the check.
- Repair finds additional damage.

Oh, and be sure to allow for a rental car during the time that yours is in the shop.

 

[RunningOnEmpty]

The guy is not going to get his repair bill paid--he already said the cost to repair is more than the value of the vehicle. So what if the shop finds additional damage to be repaired?

A stop pay or NSF check would void the release, as there would be no consideration received from the responisble party in exchange for the release of liability. DUH.

Geez, JetX, who P'd in your cornflakes this morning?

 

[JETX]

"A stop pay or NSF check would void the release, as there would be no consideration received from the responisble party in exchange for the release of liability. DUH."
*** And you are forgetting that the waiving of the signed release would very likely involve litigation..... or at a minimum, a long and exhaustive argument. Why even put yourself in that position?? Do not sign the release without FIRM funds in hand!!

And clearly, you have NO experience with how these things CAN backfire very easily.

 

[RunningOnEmpty]

"*** And you are forgetting that the waiving of the signed release would very likely involve litigation..... or at a minimum, a long and exhaustive argument. Why even put yourself in that position?? Do not sign the release without FIRM funds in hand!!

And clearly, you have NO experience with how these things CAN backfire very easily."

My reply:

Firm funds in hand are good. No argument there.

The poster is talking about an older, totalled automobile. The amount of money he is talking about could probably be handled in small claims court, where he will be heading anyway if he doesn't obtain satisfaction from the responsible party. (It won't matter much whether it is for the damage to his car or a NSF check--he'll wind up in small claims court, either way).

The argument of whether a signed release is legally binding in the case of a NSF or stopped check would hardly be long and exhaustive, but rather obvious.

JetX--look at what I do for a living and guess how much time I've spent in court with litigated claims. Of course I have experience with what can and does backfire. Quit being so cantankerous! You used to be such a nice JetX!

Based on the original post, the responsible party's intentions are to pay for the damages. He wants a signed release once he has paid. While you call me "stupid" for thinking that is a reasonable request, somehow, I don't think you would pay somebody out of pocket without securing a signed release. You seem smarter than that (even if you are cranky and mean). And I'll bet you would not be willing to pay more than the value of the property to repair the said property, because the person expected you to. If the poster is not comfortable accepting a check, cash is good.

The real issue here seems to be that the poster has an unrealistic expectation that he can recover the cost of the repairs when the cost will exceed the value of his vehicle. It ain't gonna happen!

 

[JETX]

Trying to explain legal facts to you is like talking to a stump. I don't care if you are an insurance adjuster or not. You simply are refusing to accept the FACT that the writer should NOT sign any release until he has the FIRM money in hand. Anything less would be foolish..... and a legal risk.

"You used to be such a nice JetX!"
*** I am still 'nice'. I just don't like it when someone posts inaccurate answers to a writer..... and then, even when faced with overwhelming LEGAL facts to the contrary, cannot admit the possibility that their OPINION might have been wrong.

 

[RunningOnEmpty]

JetX--you are arguing for the sake of arguing! I did not give the poster any inaccurate info, whatsoever!

I believe I said that if he is not comfortable with a check, cash is good. I believe I said that firm funds in hand is good.

I'm simply telling the guy that AFTER he is paid, whether it be by cash, check, jelly beans, whatever, that the responsible party is perfectly reasonable in expecting a signed release. For some reason, you feel this is inaccurate???? You wouldn't expect the same? Where have I told him to sign a release before he is paid?

And while you may feel that a signed release would hold water in court if the responsible party stopped the check or the check was NSF--I strongly disagree.

You are still ignoring the issue that the poster thinks he is entitled to the cost of repairs--I told him he is not. You feel that is inaccurate, too? Exactly what did I tell him that is inaccurate?

 

[JETX]

"I did not give the poster any inaccurate info, whatsoever!"
*** You said, "And of course he wants you to sign a release after he pays you. Wouldn't you want the same? Sounds reasonable to me."
In my initial read of that statement, it wasn't clear (to me) that the writer needs to make sure that the payment received was valid. I have seen LOTS of cases where a sleazy person (as the at fault driver clearly is) gives a person a check and gets a release, only to put a stop pay or NSF on the check. In re-reading the issue, my response to your partly accurate post may have been too aggressive.

"I believe I said that firm funds in hand is good.'
*** You didn't (at least in your first post).

"I'm simply telling the guy that AFTER he is paid, whether it be by cash, check, jelly beans, whatever, that the responsible party is perfectly reasonable in expecting a signed release. For some reason, you feel this is inaccurate????"
*** Nope.... and never said it was in error.

"You wouldn't expect the same?"
*** Of course I would.

"Where have I told him to sign a release before he is paid?"
*** You didn't. You also didn't 'warn' the writer that payment should be suspected UNTIL verified.

"And while you may feel that a signed release would hold water in court if the responsible party stopped the check or the check was NSF--I strongly disagree."
*** Again, I never said the signed agreement wouldn't 'hold water'. I simple said why allow yourself to be put in the possible position of arguing that point in court.

"You are still ignoring the issue that the poster thinks he is entitled to the cost of repairs--I told him he is not. You feel that is inaccurate, too?"
*** Again, nope. And never said you were incorrect on that.

"Exactly what did I tell him that is inaccurate?"
*** As noted above, your post in itself was not inaccurate. Only that you omitted the issue of 'false payment' and signing a release.