Progressive Insurance 5000 per Accident liability claims

[wordupmag]

I driver hit a parked car on the street causing 5K in damage. They then proceeded down the street at a high rate of speed and hit my parked vehicle causing 5K in damage. These are two separate unrelated accidents. The total damage to both vehicles is 10K. Their insurance policy is with Progressive with the California minimum of 5000 per accident. Progressive Insurance is saying that this is considered one accident and one claim, therefore, I will not get paid with the insurance money for my damages because they only pay up to 5K per accident. Can they do that? is that correct? If so that would mean you could hit a car in Los Angeles at 7 am then drive 20 miles to Long Beach and hit another car 30 minutes later and that would be considered one accident? that's crazy. Does anyone know if that is correct?

 

[Zigner]

From the way you type it, it sounds as if the vehicle collided with one car and then, because of the force of the accident, proceeded directly to your car, where it also impacted it. I can see why Progressive is saying what they're saying.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Can they do that? is that correct?

Whether the insurer is obligated to pay the claim depends on the terms of the policy and the exact facts. Even though two cars were hit that does not automatically mean that they are two separate incidents. If the driver hit the first car and then without stopping hit your car a few seconds later, for example, that is likely to be seen as one single course of action by the driver and thus one incident.

Your recourse is to sue the driver. If the driver thinks his insurer is wrongfully denying the claim, he or she may sue the insurance company to pay whatever judgment you get against the driver.

 

[wordupmag]

Hello Guys thanks for the replies.

let me clear up what happened. After the first car was struck the person actually got out of his car and looked at the damage caused. He then tried to flee striking my car that was parked 40 feet away. His vehicle struck both cars at different times and at different locations.

 

[wordupmag]

Whether the insurer is obligated to pay the claim depends on the terms of the policy and the exact facts. Even though two cars were hit that does not automatically mean that they are two separate incidents. If the driver hit the first car and then without stopping hit your car a few seconds later, for example, that is likely to be seen as one single course of action by the driver and thus one incident.

Your recourse is to sue the driver. If the driver thinks his insurer is wrongfully denying the claim, he or she may sue the insurance company to pay whatever judgment you get against the driver.

Thanks for your reply,
The person actually stopped and got out of the vehicle after hitting the first car.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Hello Guys thanks for the replies.

let me clear up what happened. After the first car was struck the person actually got out of his car and looked at the damage caused. He then tried to flee striking my car that was parked 40 feet away. His vehicle struck both cars at different times and at different locations.

Again, it comes down to what the policy says and all of the facts. I haven't read the driver's policy (and likely you haven't either) and without doing that it is impossible to say if the insurer is properly denying coverage. In any event, it is the driver who is liable to you, not his insurer, so you are free to sue the driver to get compensated for the damage to your car.

 

[wordupmag]

Again, it comes down to what the policy says and all of the facts. I haven't read the driver's policy (and likely you haven't either) and without doing that it is impossible to say if the insurer is properly denying coverage. In any event, it is the driver who is liable to you, not his insurer, so you are free to sue the driver to get compensated for the damage to your car.

Thanks for the reply,

I have their policy. It says 5k per accident. I will be suing someone soon...I guess

 

[Taxing Matters]

Thanks for the reply,

I have their policy. It says 5k per accident.

It likely says a whole lot more than that. The entirety of the policy, including definitions, etc., is important.

I will be suing someone soon...I guess

Well, the driver is the one who caused the damage, so that's person you sue.

 

[quincy]

Thanks for the reply,

I have their policy. It says 5k per accident. I will be suing someone soon...I guess

Have you reported the accident to your own insurance company?

 

[wordupmag]

Have you reported the accident to your own insurance company?

Yes but did not want to use because of the 1k deductible but looks like I will have to

 

[quincy]

Yes but did not want to use because of the 1k deductible but looks like I will have to

You should be able to recover the $1000 deductible.

 

[adjusterjack]

Yes but did not want to use because of the 1k deductible but looks like I will have to

You shouldn't have to sue for your deductible. In fact, that's a common misconception that seems to have legs on this and other sites. Common industry practice is that when your insurance company pays your claim (5000 - 1000 = 4000) it will seek 5000 from the at fault party or his insurance company and whatever it collects, the first 1000 goes back to you. Ask your claim rep how that works with your company. If, for some reason, it cannot collect without a lawsuit you will need your company to waive its right to sue the at fault party before you can sue.

The person actually stopped and got out of the vehicle after hitting the first car.

I would call that two separate accidents and would have opened separate liability claims for that policyholder. Even if it was one accident Progressive should be pro-rating the coverage between the two victims. Even then, however, you would only get a fraction of your damage.

 

[Taxing Matters]

If, for some reason, it cannot collect without a lawsuit you will need your company to waive its right to sue the at fault party before you can sue.

The problem for the OP's insurance company is that the driver's insurance company is refusing to pay based on the limits of the policy and its interpretation of how the policy would apply in this instance. Now maybe the OP's insurance company would be able to persuade the driver's insurance to cough up something here, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. And if that doesn't happen, the OP will indeed be left to sue the driver for it.

 

[adjusterjack]

The insurance company's right of subrogation is against the at fault driver. If the subrogation rep can't collect from the driver's insurance company he/she can go after the driver. With a small claim it's likely to be sent to collections rather than incur the expense of a lawsuit, though the company would still retain the right to sue unless it waives that right and allows its insured to sue.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The insurance company's right of subrogation is against the at fault driver. If the subrogation rep can't collect from the driver's insurance company he/she can go after the driver. With a small claim it's likely to be sent to collections rather than incur the expense of a lawsuit, though the company would still retain the right to sue unless it waives that right and allows its insured to sue.

I understand all that, but the fact remains that the OP's insurance company may not collect anything from the at fault driver. If it does, great. But given that the at fault driver's insurer is denying the claim and given the low amount involved, I doubt very much that the insurance company is going to try all that hard to get it. Suing the at fault driver for it is likely to cost the insurance company more than it would recover. And a collection agency may turn out not to be very effective since the only weapon it has is the power of annoyance.