I was hit by a drunk driver

[debadee123]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
About a year and a half ago I was plowed into by a drunk driver as I was sitting at a red light. Both occupants in the other car were plastered and their car was jacked up! Anyway, the police came & took a report & arrested the driver. I got an attorney within the next couple of days & after almost a year later & numerous chiropracter appointments, I recieved a settlement. (Not what I felt it was worth but a settlement none-the-less) I was told by the police a little while later that this guy has had several DUI's. So, my question now is my insurance co. is now asking for reimbursement for the money they paid out for my medical bills, about 9 mos. after the settlement was complete. Is this right for them to do? Also, I recieved a letter from the DA saying that I may be entitled to some compensation & that there is a trial with the other driver coming up in Nov. & that I should get all my paperwork together for them & go to the hearing. Do they mean more than what I already rec'd & should I ask them to just pay off my ins. co. for what they're asking for? And should I attend the hearing & should I be calling them beforehand to find out exactly what's going on? I have a hard time trusting anyone involved in the court system because of another thing years ago, so I don't know who to speak to & who I should trust that they're telling me the truth & really want to HELP me. Thank you, I hope that's enough info. so you can help advise me on this.

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
About a year and a half ago I was plowed into by a drunk driver as I was sitting at a red light. Both occupants in the other car were plastered and their car was jacked up! Anyway, the police came & took a report & arrested the driver. I got an attorney within the next couple of days & after almost a year later & numerous chiropracter appointments, I recieved a settlement. (Not what I felt it was worth but a settlement none-the-less) I was told by the police a little while later that this guy has had several DUI's. So, my question now is my insurance co. is now asking for reimbursement for the money they paid out for my medical bills, about 9 mos. after the settlement was complete. Is this right for them to do? Also, I recieved a letter from the DA saying that I may be entitled to some compensation & that there is a trial with the other driver coming up in Nov. & that I should get all my paperwork together for them & go to the hearing. Do they mean more than what I already rec'd & should I ask them to just pay off my ins. co. for what they're asking for? And should I attend the hearing & should I be calling them beforehand to find out exactly what's going on? I have a hard time trusting anyone involved in the court system because of another thing years ago, so I don't know who to speak to & who I should trust that they're telling me the truth & really want to HELP me. Thank you, I hope that's enough info. so you can help advise me on this.

Your insurance has every right to be reimbursed. In fact that should have been worked into the settlement amount. Contact the DA about the compensation you may be entitled to ~ it is a valid fund and is for people who have suffered at the hands of another.

 

[debadee123]

Thank you for the response to my post. My next question is, I called my attorneys office to ask some questions about the reembursement to my ins. co.. After 4 days, I rec'd a msg. from them asking me to return their call so we can set up a payment plan with my ins. cos. attorney. Since they didn't pay out all the money to the parties they were supposed to (my ins. co.), & follow this through to the end, should I even deal with them anymore? I feel like they've left me high & dry & now I'm responsible to fix it? They got paid in full. Are they in any way responsible to me to fix this or am I really on my own?

 

[CourtClerk]

If you received the money, just pay back the insurance company. You are holding onto money that doesn't belong to you.

 

[latigo]

The DA was referring to the California Victim Compensation Program (CalVCP).

For information on making an application to receive compensation from the program and other pertinent info you should communicate with the Victim Assistance Center in your county.

However, from what little I have read of the program you would not be entitled to be compensated for non-pecuniary losses such as pain and suffer

And CalVCP will not compensate a victim for such things as medical costs incurred as a result of the criminal act where those expenses have been previously paid by “insurance or other sources”. So you’ve got some problems with having made the out of court settlement.

However, your insurance company would have no subrogation rights to anything that was paid through the victims compensation program.

BUT as other people in here have mentioned you do have some problems with the people that are demanding restitution from you over those paid medical expenses.

If were you, I would demand an explanation from your attorney as why your insurance company was not protected in the settlement. And remind him or her that he or she can also be held personally for not protecting their subrogation rights knowing that had paid those medical costs.

 

[debadee123]

Well, I'm not deliberately holding money that doesn't belong to me. I didn't receive a huge settlement & the first I heard anything from the insurance co. was 10 mos. later. I have no money left. If I had known that they could come after me that much later I would've put the money I did have away or contacted the insurance company myself so as to prevent a problem like this.

 

[Zigner]

Well, I'm not deliberately holding money that doesn't belong to me. I didn't receive a huge settlement & the first I heard anything from the insurance co. was 10 mos. later. I have no money left. If I had known that they could come after me that much later I would've put the money I did have away or contacted the insurance company myself so as to prevent a problem like this.

You DID know about this. It's all in the paperwork that you signed when you signed up for the insurance.

 

[Country Living]

Unfortunately few people read everything from their insurance company. And that's what gets them in trouble later.

de, here's what's happening in case you're confused. Your insurance company paid your bills. Then you got a settlement from the other company. You now have made a profit since you had no out of pocket expenses. An example would be your insurance company paid your $100 bill and then you got a settlement from the other company for $100. Your insurance company expects to be made whole which puts you at zero profit - as it should be.

You need to set up a payment plan with your insurance company. To do so through your attorney (as I gathered in your 11/7 post) might be more expensive and will also put in administrative layers. Plus you can't be assured they'll make payments on time. I'm not one to want levels of complexity added to financial matters.

 

[debadee123]

I would've read the insurance policy in full IF it were my policy. Unfortunately, it was my mother-in-laws policy & her car I was driving. Now her car is considered totalled & I still suffer back & neck pain, so I seriously doubt that I can be made whole again. This idiot who hit me has several DUI's from a couple of different states & I believe that is the purpose of the court hearing with the DA, to throw the book at him & hold him accountable for all of the damage he's caused. Thank you for your time & input on helping me in this matter.

 

[latigo]

If you received the money, just pay back the insurance company. You are holding onto money that doesn't belong to you.

Which response is another example of the danger of people lacking professional credentials tossing out misleading guesswork!

Misleading because CC’s categorical statement that the OP must reimburse his or her insurance carrier for medical coverage paid wholly ignores the possible application of California’s common law “make whole rule”!

The application of which cannot be known without additional information, such as (1) whether or not a lawsuit was filed against the tortfeasor (drunk driver) and (2) whether or not the OP’s carrier participated and helped fund the lawsuit.

But if the “make whole rule” does apply, then the OP’s insurance carrier is only entitled to be reimbursed to the extent that that amount received in settlement exceeds an amount sufficient to satisfy the OP’s “loss in full and his reasonable expenses incurred in the recovery.” *

A state of satisfaction which the OP emphatically denies!

CC might well consider asking legal questions in this site rather than attempting to answer them with uninformed guesswork. Not likely, however.
___________________________


[*] Quoting from Chong v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 428 F.Supp.2d 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2006),

“Under California's common law make whole rule, a carrier that has knowledge of a policyholder's tort action and decides not to participate in it may not seek reimbursement from the successful policyholder unless the policyholder's tort recovery exceeds his actual loss. California courts have held that this means a policyholder.

“Thus, when an insurer elects not to participate in the insured's action against a tortfeasor, the insurer is entitled to subrogation only after the insured has recouped his loss and some or all of his litigation expenses incurred in the action against the tortfeasor.” [Citation.] This rule applies regardless of whether the carrier's asserted subrogation right is equitable or contractual. “ (citing Plut v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 85 Cal.App.4th 98, 104-05 (Cal.App. 2000).