Do I have a case???

I got rear end by a 17yrs old kids, after the Highway patrol filled out the report. He was given a ticket for careless driving in which cause the damage to my vehicle, even thought there were no wittness
Well, after the initial claim with his insurance and giving a statement, I was inform that by his ins. that they had the conflict in statement, due to his claiming that I was back my car and hit him**************....Long story make it short, his insurance refuse to pay for the damage of my vehicle (estimate around 450, my insurance can't represent me due to the amount was below the deductible), and he was fighting the citation ticket.
I was subpenoa by the state when he due to court. The verdict for him was guilty for careless driving.

So, I went ahead and obtain court record verdict and sent to his insurance with the demand of liability responsible. His insurance still insist that they will not pay for the poperty damage, and explain that even though he was guilty for careless driving it still did not have any relate to the accident due to there is no witness **************......I was shock **************...so the question remain do I have the good solid reasonable case for small claim court, and who should I be taking out to court **************..the insurer or the driver at fault ....*****????
Yours input is much appreciate

You failed to post your state, but if you are in the US, you have a decent chance to win in small claims court. You sue the person who hit you, his insurance will provide for his defense and pay if you win.

Oh, yes I lived in florida by the way. I was thinking of taking them both out to court ( His insurance and him) is it possible ????. Since he may argued at the court that he had insurance, and therefore I take it up with his insurance perhap.????

The insurance company did not cause the accident. You sue the negligent party, the driver of the vehicle only.

You sue the party that wronged you. His insurance company didn't hit you, and they are denying your claim because they have no choice - even if the adjuster believes you (and they probably do), they have a legal duty to defend their insured.

Not exactly the same topic but...

I had a girl wreck her truck and cause indirect damage to my house. Her insurance refused to pay also. Once I established a clear path, the case was decided in my favor. His being convicted of a traffic infraction should be show a clear path. Just stick to the facts. Expect the insurance companies lawyers to ask for and be granted a few continuances, even though it isn't court policy. When you file ASK the courts policy on them. In my case, they granted the ins co's lawyer 2 continuances, when they notified me of the third, I objected as it was in clear violation of the courts policy and a law firm has the ability to send another lawyer in that lawyers place, since it is a firm representing the insurance companies interests. I was not reimbursed for missing work for the times.

OHRoadwarrior said:

The burden in small claims court is lower than other courts.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely false. Although I suspect that you simply made a poor choice of words for the idea you were trying to convey.

I am SURE you didn't mean to say the burden (of proof) in small claims court is lower than other (civil) courts.

I suspect you meant to say that the procedures/processes in small claims court are more relaxed than they are in other courts.