Suing State Farm In Small Claims

[J.R]

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

CA

Hello all, thank you for taking the time to read my case.

I was involved in an auto accident with one of State Farm's insured, and I am also insured by State Farm. After 2 months of trying to reach a decision, they finally contact me to say that the accident is a 50/50 at fault. Therefore, State Farm agrees to pay for 50% of my damages since I only have liability. They instruct me to bring my vehicle to a shop they've chosen to get an estimate at which point they will cut me a check for the damage. I ask for this in writing, since I know what snakes insurance companies can be, and it is sent to me via e-mail

I arrive at the shop, the appraiser comes out, and he apologizes saying he can't cut me a check because it may be a total loss based on the damage. Thus, I must wait until the claim is reviewed again. I say ok fine and leave.

The next week State Farm contacts me and tells me that based on new evidence, they are denying my claim altogether and I will not receive the 50% of damages as they had already promised.

I have, in writing, their agreement to already pay for the damages. Raged with fury, I run out to my local courthouse and file a small claims case against them which will be heard in 3 weeks.

Do I have a case or what is the likelihood of the judge deciding in my favor?

Thanks.

J.R

 

[TheGeekess]

Do you know how many attorneys State Farm has working for them?

 

[justalayman]

Your action is against the other driver, unless of course you actually are at fault. Trying to force State Farm to fulfill what you want to believe to be a contract is going to be a losing situation for you.

 

[Zigner]

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

CA

Hello all, thank you for taking the time to read my case.

I was involved in an auto accident with one of State Farm's insured, and I am also insured by State Farm. After 2 months of trying to reach a decision, they finally contact me to say that the accident is a 50/50 at fault. Therefore, State Farm agrees to pay for 50% of my damages since I only have liability. They instruct me to bring my vehicle to a shop they've chosen to get an estimate at which point they will cut me a check for the damage. I ask for this in writing, since I know what snakes insurance companies can be, and it is sent to me via e-mail

I arrive at the shop, the appraiser comes out, and he apologizes saying he can't cut me a check because it may be a total loss based on the damage. Thus, I must wait until the claim is reviewed again. I say ok fine and leave.

The next week State Farm contacts me and tells me that based on new evidence, they are denying my claim altogether and I will not receive the 50% of damages as they had already promised.

I have, in writing, their agreement to already pay for the damages. Raged with fury, I run out to my local courthouse and file a small claims case against them which will be heard in 3 weeks.

Do I have a case or what is the likelihood of the judge deciding in my favor?

Thanks.

J.R

Has State Farm been served with the case?

 

[FlyingRon]

As Justa points out, State Farm has ZERO obligation to you (unless you are also insured by them).
You sue the person who was at fault in the accident. If they are insured by State Farm, that will bring them into the mix. As pointed out, State Farm has lawyers (and really, they're pretty much obliged to send one to represent their and the defendant's interest). Magisterial (Small Claims) courts in PA allow attorneys for both parties. Of course, even if you win there, they get a free do over in real court.

 

[Nellibelle]

As Justa points out, State Farm has ZERO obligation to you (unless you are also insured by them).
You sue the person who was at fault in the accident. If they are insured by State Farm, that will bring them into the mix. As pointed out, State Farm has lawyers (and really, they're pretty much obliged to send one to represent their and the defendant's interest). Magisterial (Small Claims) courts in PA allow attorneys for both parties. Of course, even if you win there, they get a free do over in real court.

Um...the OP's small claims case is in Ca. (not Pa.)! Which means NO ATTORNEY can be in court representing either party.

Also...if you read the Op's post, you will find that the Op mentions he IS also insured by State Farm.

 

[Zigner]

Um...the OP's small claims case is in Ca. (not Pa.)! Which means NO ATTORNEY can be in court representing either party.

WRONG
(But why would you want to break the streak?)

 

[justalayman]

WRONG
(But why would you want to break the streak?)

I thought there were not attorney's allowed in California small claims as well.

from LA sueprior courts website regarding small claims and who may represent a party:


https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/smallclaims/ui/whatis.aspx


Corporation An employee, officer, or director if they have not been hired just to represent the corporation in court

 

[Zigner]

I thought there were not attorney's allowed in California small claims as well.

from LA sueprior courts website regarding small claims and who may represent a party:


https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/smallclaims/ui/whatis.aspx


Corporation An employee, officer, or director if they have not been hired just to represent the corporation in court

You checked before making a statement as fact. And, had you made the statement as fact, you would have graciously acknowledged the error and corrected it.

'cause you're a stand-up guy like that

 

[TheGeekess]

I thought there were not attorney's allowed in California small claims as well.

from LA sueprior courts website regarding small claims and who may represent a party:


https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/smallclaims/ui/whatis.aspx


Corporation An employee, officer, or director if they have not been hired just to represent the corporation in court

Insurance companies employee a LOT of attorneys. They do arbitration, for the most part. (I've had one or two friends who work/worked for Large Insurance.)

 

[latigo]

Sorry, but you are going to come out on the short end of your lawsuit against State Farm Insurance Company. You will lose it on legal principles not simply because the defendant has a host of lawyers.

The bottom line is that State Farm has no responsibility to you whatsoever. Not under the terms of your policy nor under the terms of the other driver's policy. And because they bear no liability to you - contractually or tort - they could with impunity have promised you Fort Knox on top of paying half of you repair costs.

To explain:

1. Obviously you can't sue State Farm under your own policy simply for refusal to repair your vehicle because you opted not to include collision and comprehensive loss coverage.

2. You can't sue them under the other guy's policy simply because you are not a party to it AND because of the way that liability insurance contract is written.

How is it written? The same as yours. As an indemnity agreement meaning that State Farm agrees to pay on behalf of its insured any amounts that may be adjudged to be due and payable a third part claimant, that is within the policy limits and for a loss as covered by the terms of the policy.

In other words, those liability policy are written in such a fashion as to isolate the insurer from direct/contractual responsibility to the third party claimant.

If you want to sue the other driver to recover compensatory damages, fine. But you cannot sue State Farm Insurance Company. Nor could you even mention the presence or absence of insurance coverage in your lawsuit against the other driver! That is strictly verboten.

 

[FlyingRon]

OK delete my comments about PA magisterial courts, I misread the state.

The resto still applies. You don't sue the other guy's insurance, you sue him.