Auto Damage Caused By Ignition Interlock Device (IID) Servicers

[stevepenn60]

I own a no-lien car with my close relative, who uses car. She had to have IID by "Intoxalock" installed on car for DUI offense. The manipulations of the car by Intoxalock or its "certified" mechanics resulted in $2000+ to vehicle's electronics & caused A/C and belt damage. Intoxalock claims that the car's trouble is coincidental & does not accept responsibility. I have other facts that say otherwise.

To whom can I start to claim recovery for the costs of these damages? To the California State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), whose rules concerning the vehicle only authorize Intoxalock mechanics to manipulate the device on the vehicle, and prohibitively cause no other mechanics who can or will touch a car with a legally attached device)? To Intoxalock and/or their certified mechanics, who cause the damage and who can be shown to be liable?

In a DMV online chat, I told DMV I intended to file a claim for damages, and chat agent said (1) file accident [SR-1] form with DMV and (2) notify insurance. This doesn't seem to be process to start a claim except for an auto accident unrelated to damage caused by the state agency or its authorized service providers.

(Many facts of this "case" to prove liability by DMV or its service providers are not described).

 

[quincy]

I own a no-lien car with my close relative, who uses car. She had to have IID by "Intoxalock" installed on car for DUI offense. The manipulations of the car by Intoxalock or its "certified" mechanics resulted in $2000+ to vehicle's electronics & caused A/C and belt damage. Intoxalock claims that the car's trouble is coincidental & does not accept responsibility. I have other facts that say otherwise.

To whom can I start to claim recovery for the costs of these damages? To the California State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), whose rules concerning the vehicle only authorize Intoxalock mechanics to manipulate the device on the vehicle, and prohibitively cause no other mechanics who can or will touch a car with a legally attached device)? To Intoxalock and/or their certified mechanics, who cause the damage and who can be shown to be liable?

In a DMV online chat, I told DMV I intended to file a claim for damages, and chat agent said (1) file accident [SR-1] form with DMV and (2) notify insurance. This doesn't seem to be process to start a claim except for an auto accident unrelated to damage caused by the state agency or its authorized service providers.

(Many facts of this "case" to prove liability by DMV or its service providers are not described).

Any claim you have appears to be against the mechanic(s) who installed the IID.

 

[adjusterjack]

Agree. If the installer company is responsible for the damage and refuses to pay, you (the car owner) sue the installer company in small claims court for the cost of repairs.

The motor vehicle rules and regulations have nothing to do with the installer's alleged negligent installation.

And you might as well leave your insurance company out of it as there is no coverage for this type of loss under Collision and Other Than Collision (formerly known as Comprehensive).

A. “Collision” means upset of an insured auto or its impact with another vehicle or object.
B. “Other than Collision” means loss caused by the following:
1. missiles or falling objects;
2. fire;
3. theft or larceny;
4. explosion or earthquake;
5. windstorm;
6. hail, water or flood;
7. malicious mischief or vandalism;
8. riot or civil commotion;
9. contact with bird or animal; or
10. breakage of glass. If breakage of glass results from a collision, you may elect to have it treated as a loss caused by collision

 

[AlmostThere]

You can also ask the person who required the IID to shoulder some/all of the damages.

 

[quincy]

You can also ask the person who required the IID to shoulder some/all of the damages.

That would be the state - and a suit against the state for faulty installation of an IID by a certified mechanic is pretty much guaranteed to fail.

If you mean stevepenn’s close relative with whom he co-owns the car, sure, he could look to her for help covering costs should a lawsuit either not be pursued or should a lawsuit fail to be successful.

late edit to correct “loan” to “co-own”

 

[adjusterjack]

I think AlmostThere was referring to the drunk for whom it was required.

 

[Zigner]

You can also ask the person who required the IID to shoulder some/all of the damages.

Of course the OP can ask...
But it would be futile. The state, setting aside immunity, didn't damage the vehicle.

 

[quincy]

I think AlmostThere was referring to the drunk for whom it was required.

I caught that.

 

[not2cleverRed]

You can also ask the person who required the IID to shoulder some/all of the damages.

I would think that OP's beef should be with the "close relative" whose actions resulted in the IID being needed.

 

[quincy]

I would think that OP's beef should be with the "close relative" whose actions resulted in the IID being needed.

The close relative apparently co-owns the car. She apparently did not cause the damage, though.

 

[AlmostThere]

The close relative apparently co-owns the car. She apparently did not cause the damage, though.

You are right, the close relative did not cause the damage. But had she not driven drunk and required the interlock in the first place, this would not have happened.

Minimally, she should be the one trying to find a way to remedy the situation instead of OP. And OP, should start making her responsible for the results of her actions.

 

[quincy]

You are right, the close relative did not cause the damage. But had she not driven drunk and required the interlock in the first place, this would not have happened.

Minimally, she should be the one trying to find a way to remedy the situation instead of OP. And OP, should start making her responsible for the results of her actions.

I don’t disagree with that.

 

[adjusterjack]

Is not disagreeing the same as agreeing?

 

[quincy]

Is not disagreeing the same as agreeing?

Yup. Pretty much the same thing but one uses more words.

 

[Zigner]

Yup. Pretty much the same thing but one uses more words.

Trying to use them all up before the end of the year, huh?