Being Sued for minor accident

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

Back in November my 17 year old daughter tapped an SUV's back bumper in her Pontiac G6. She was in heavily congested single lane stop and go traffic and rolled into the vehicle in front of her. There was no damage to my daughter's G6 or the SUV.

For reasons unknown to us at the time the driver called police, fire and ambulance. The police saw no damage and therefore did not issue a ticket. Fire and ambulance were on-site for approximately 5 minutes. The fireman never even got out of the truck, they just drove away. The paramedics asked if everyone was okay and everyone acknowledged that they were fine. The other driver and my daughter however did exchange information. Both the other driver and my daughter have full insurance coverage under my policy and the car is in my name.

Last week my insurance company received a letter from a privately hired attorney that my daughter was being sued for injuries sustained in the accident apparently to a 15 month old child in the back of the vehicle.

Next week an adjuster is coming to take a statement from my daughter but I have a couple of questions please...

What would be the other driver's logic of hiring a private attorney to sue us rather than go through his insurance?

Also, my daughter distinctly remembers that the child was not in a car seat at the time of the accident but just loose in the back. She knows this because when she was standing at the side of the road soon after the accident, the husband was screaming at his wife 'get the kid in the seat' -'get the kid in the seat' and the wife sprung out of the front passenger side, opened the back door and rushed to get the child into a car seat. My daughter didn't think anything of it at the time, but in retrospect if the child was indeed hurt (which is highly doubtful based on the gentle impact) it was most likely because it wasn't restrained.

My wife and I are sick to our stomachs over this and my daughter is very distraught. We're really not sure what is going to happen next. Please if you can shed any light on this I would greatly appreciate it.

What would be the other driver's logic of hiring a private attorney to sue us rather than go through his insurance?

Click to expand...

Because auto insurance carriers do not pursue bodily injury claims for their insureds.

You just need to settle down and let your insurance carrier handle the claim. If the accident happened three months ago, it is very doubtful that a lawsuit has been filed. If a suit is filed, your insurance carrier will provide you a defense.

Did you report the accident to your insurance carrier when it happened?

Thank you for your reply. No we did not report it to the insurance as there were no damages nor did we ever imagine there could be an injury.

Sounds like the other party is just wanting to make a quick buck$$

Report it to your insurance and let them handle it. The other party hired an attorney because they believe they are going to become rich from this accident.

As stated, you're not being sued - the other party has made a claim against you. They will be seeking "pain and suffering" - the other parties insurance will only cover there out of pocket med bills.

Go on with your life. I wouldnt lose sleep over it.

It doesn't take a major accident to cause an injury. Your insurance company needs to be informed as soon as possible.

Does the fact that the child was not restrained in the vehicle and would be more prone to injury (if injured at all) be against us or is the point irrelevant?
I understand too that it is just our word against their's as there were no witnesses.

bdean said:

Does the fact that the child was not restrained in the vehicle and would be more prone to injury (if injured at all) be against us or is the point irrelevant?
I understand too that it is just our word against their's as there were no witnesses.

Click to expand...

Whether the child was in a car seat may be relevant to the proximate cause of the injuries or comparative (contributory) negligence.

When there is a difference in witnesses' versions of the facts, the finder of fact (ultimately a judge or jury) determines the credibility of the witnesses. In this case, the initial fact-finder role is played by the insurance adjuster (whose findings are not legally binding as are those of the Court).

Labtec and emsct12, the insurance carrier has been informed - by the attorney for the other driver.

RJ2011 said:

Sounds like the other party is just wanting to make a quick buck$$

Click to expand...

This is both completely uninformed opinion and irrelevant.

First - thank you so very much for all of your replies.

I am trying to consider the ramifications of all of this and I would guess (please confirm) that regardless of whether the other party is successful in their claim or not, that my insurance carrier will consider this to be a claim (as they will be out of pocket defending this to some or to a great extent) and somewhere down the road probably on renewal, we will be hit with a premium increase - please correct me if I'm wrong.

If we are hit with an increase that in itself could cost us quite a lot of money in the coming years and quite possibly it could be the result of this other party trying to pull a fast one if he is not claiming legitimate injuries. So my additional questions are...

- Wll we ever be informed by the insurance carrier as to the outcome of this entire process, or not usually?

- If there was no payout and it was determined that there were no injuries, could we (and would it be worth to and likely successful) to counter sue for the increased premiums we would have to pay?

My feeling on this is that if someone sues us and it is not legitimate, than why should we be faced with future premium increases when the original claim was without merit.

Your thought's?

Your daughter caused an accident; any premium increase that you incur is COMPLETELY legitimate because of that.

If it settles out of court, you will likely not know the terms of the settlement, it is not up to you and really none of your business.

Do you realize how absurd it sounds that you would want to sue the VICTIM of your daughter's negligence because of the consequences of that negligence???

With great respect we have every reason to believe that this VICTIM is trying to commit insurance fraud and if proven so, not only would he have commited fraud, he would cause us financial harm from his actions for several years to come. Absurd? Perhaps if he is legitimate! Not absurd if he is trying to take us to the cleaners as we suspect.

I am not saying my daughter is not gulity of tapping this guys SUV, but I am saying there is likely absolutely no chance of an injury that would merit his course of action. I find it extremely distasteful that there is the possibilty that we could potentially pay out thousands in increased premiums in the coming years because someone 'maybe' trying to take advantage of a situation. Why should I then possibly become the VICTIM of a fraudster? There was no damage to claim, so only solely due to his actions does this claim now exist. If his actions are dishonest then I have to pay for them for a long time to come and dearly I would suspect.

He's the victim because SHE HIT HIM. Any increased premiums (which SHE, not you, should pay) are because SHE HIT HIM, not because he may or may not have been injured, and may or may not receive compensation for those injuries. That part is irrelevent. All your insurance cares about is that she was at fault and caused an accident. And that is perfectly indisputable.

And there are plenty of people here who have personal experience with low-speed impacts which did indeed cause MAJOR injuries. It's NOT impossible in the least.

BDean, I understand you're angry that the other driver may be trying to claim injuries for a child who wasn't in a carseat. You've got every right under the sun to be upset about that. I'm personally aggravated that the child wasn't in a carseat. That could have helped to prevent any injuries that might have happened. Just tapping another vehicle can cause enough sudden force to cause injuries. It doesn't take slamming into someone at 60MPH.

But the rise in premiums isn't based solely on payouts. If your daughter had tapped a light pole or a parked car, and no one was in the car or near the light pole, as far as the insurance company will see it, she's a bigger liability than she was, based solely on the fact that she hit something.

If you were an insurance company and a person hit another vehicle, would you feel comfortable with keeping the rate the same, or would you be concerned about the chance of it happening again when it's already happened once? Increased concern means an increased premium.

Your daughter should get a job and pay any increases herself. She failed to hit the break in slow traffic. Quit defending her.

QueenofEngland thank you for your input I completely understand what you are saying.