Rear ended- neither party has insurance

ninikki12 · #1 08-19-2009, 06:07 PM

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

Hi, I Live in Michigan, and I was rear ended at a stop light. The guy who hit me fled the scene but was caught a few miles up. Neither of us have auto insurance. He is an elderly man. I am wondering what are my options to try and get him to pay for the damage to my car. Is sueing the only option? If I am able to sue and win and he has ssi or doesnt work, what then? Someone mentioned I can have the court sell some of his property. Is that true?

ecmst12 · #2 08-19-2009, 06:19 PM

Michigan is a true no-fault state (the only one), and you were both uninsured. His being uninsured exempts him from the $500 cap that would normally be placed on his liability for property damage, so you can try suing him for the full repair cost. But you can't get blood from a stone - if he has no assets and only SS income, you're not getting squat. You should have had insurance.

justalayman · #3 08-19-2009, 06:22 PM

I'm betting you are going to get two very different opinions regarding what you can and cannot do. With Michigan having no-fault insurance laws, if you both had insurance, the most you could seek from the other party is $500 of non-insurance reimbursed losses.

Now, I have spoken with a Michigan attorney that flat out stated that if an at fault party does not have insurance, they lose the protections concerning being liable for the injured party's damages. As such, it would be possible to sue the at-fault party for your damages.

Now, I have read the statute and, in my interpretation, I concur with the attorney's advice. The problem is, the discussion centered around a person who had been damaged in an auto accident and was suing the at fault party for all of his damages due to the understanding that the at fault party was no longer protected from such suits due to their not having insurance.

the guy gets to court and the magistrate tells him; Michigan is a no fault state and as such, the injuring party is only liable for $500 mini-tort limitaion. They guy appeals and sees a judge. Judge says the same thing.

so, depending on how your courts deal with this and how much you are willing to work at this, I can assure you, you will either win or you will lose.

ecmst12 · #4 08-19-2009, 06:27 PM

And it's possible you could get to court and when the judge finds out you are ALSO uninsured, tells you that you don't get ANYTHING, or that you are still limited to the $500.

justalayman · #5 08-19-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecmst12

And it's possible you could get to court and when the judge finds out you are ALSO uninsured, tells you that you don't get ANYTHING, or that you are still limited to the $500.

I can find nothing in the law that prevents an injured party from compensation simply due to the fact they did not have insurance though.

but, there is a nice little penalty for not having insurance though. If I remember correctly, there is a $1000 surcharge for the next 2 years when purchasing the annual registration.

ecmst12 · #6 08-19-2009, 06:54 PM

Doesn't mean a judge couldn't rule that way. You just posted about a judge completely disregarding the law as it was written. Small claims court has a reputation of being fast and loose with the law in the best of circumstances.

justalayman · #7 08-19-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecmst12

Doesn't mean a judge couldn't rule that way. You just posted about a judge completely disregarding the law as it was written. Small claims court has a reputation of being fast and loose with the law in the best of circumstances.

it means a judge cannot legally rule that way.

the guy I spoke of gave up after the judge. He was advised he could appeal it by the lawyer I spoke of. The amount of money just wasn't worth fighting it any further.