Victim of Car Accident told to Kick Rocks?

[gryndor]

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

So, Feb 2012 my brother was at a stop sign with someone stopped behind him. A third car slammed into the car behind my brother, who then slammed into my brother, totalling his car.

My brother had liability-only, so they could care less. The car behind my brother was insured with AAA, and they weren't exactly proactive where anyone but their insured was concerned.

The at-fault party's insurance is Commerce West and they explained this to me: Our insured had a policy that maxes out at $5000. Therefore, we need signed releases from you and from the other party before we can pay out an amount directly proportional to your loss, but that adds up between the two of the mangled cars to $5000.

My brother finally got a voicemail last week from a Commerce West rep that said "the other party has sent back their release, we are waiting on yours and then we can pay out the money." So my brother signed the paperwork and sent it in without delay.

Today we got a letter saying that they received my brother's release and they were waiting on the other party to return theirs, before any money was to be paid out.

So I took another look at the release my brother signed, and I'd like some help with the legalese:
"(My Brother) assigns in consideration of the payment of (money) do hereby remise, release and forever discharge (at fault party) and Commerce West Insurance Company and their heirs (etc.) and assigns from and against all claims, demands, actions and causes of action for damages whenever and however arising on account of damage to property arising out of an accident which occured on (date) at or near (place)"

but then it says:

"This release expressly reserves all rights of the person or persons, (etc.) on whose behalf payment is made and the rights of all persons privy to or connected with them and reserves to them their right to pursue their legal remedies, if any, against any liable parties."

Doesn't the second statement contradict the first?

Is my brother completely screwed out of ANY kind of remedy in this matter?

If we brought the voicemail from Commerce West saying that the other party had signed off and they were just waiting on my brother to make payment, would that hold any power against the release he then signed?

 

[sandyclaus]

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

So, Feb 2012 my brother was at a stop sign with someone stopped behind him. A third car slammed into the car behind my brother, who then slammed into my brother, totalling his car.

My brother had liability-only, so they could care less. The car behind my brother was insured with AAA, and they weren't exactly proactive where anyone but their insured was concerned.

The at-fault party's insurance is Commerce West and they explained this to me: Our insured had a policy that maxes out at $5000. Therefore, we need signed releases from you and from the other party before we can pay out an amount directly proportional to your loss, but that adds up between the two of the mangled cars to $5000.

My brother finally got a voicemail last week from a Commerce West rep that said "the other party has sent back their release, we are waiting on yours and then we can pay out the money." So my brother signed the paperwork and sent it in without delay.

Today we got a letter saying that they received my brother's release and they were waiting on the other party to return theirs, before any money was to be paid out.

So I took another look at the release my brother signed, and I'd like some help with the legalese:
"(My Brother) assigns in consideration of the payment of (money) do hereby remise, release and forever discharge (at fault party) and Commerce West Insurance Company and their heirs (etc.) and assigns from and against all claims, demands, actions and causes of action for damages whenever and however arising on account of damage to property arising out of an accident which occured on (date) at or near (place)"

but then it says:

"This release expressly reserves all rights of the person or persons, (etc.) on whose behalf payment is made and the rights of all persons privy to or connected with them and reserves to them their right to pursue their legal remedies, if any, against any liable parties."

Doesn't the second statement contradict the first?

Is my brother completely screwed out of ANY kind of remedy in this matter?

If we brought the voicemail from Commerce West saying that the other party had signed off and they were just waiting on my brother to make payment, would that hold any power against the release he then signed?

I'm MORE than a bit confused.

In California, the minimum policy limits are $15k/30k, so basically they were saying that the at-fault driver's policy was limited to a payout of $5k only? That makes no sense.

That first part of the release basically means that your brother is signing away his right to seek any additional amounts as damages from the accident in excess of the unspecified payment he is supposed to receive. The second part basically says the at-fault driver reserves the right to pursue any damages against any OTHER persons found to be at fault in the accident.

Your brother shouldn't have signed ANY release without an actual dollar amount and money in hand. In fact, he should have had his OWN insurance company deal with the insurance company from the at-fault driver.

 

[Zigner]

I'm MORE than a bit confused.

In California, the minimum policy limits are $15k/30k, so basically they were saying that the at-fault driver's policy was limited to a payout of $5k only? That makes no sense.

That first part of the release basically means that your brother is signing away his right to seek any additional amounts as damages from the accident in excess of the unspecified payment he is supposed to receive. The second part basically says the at-fault driver reserves the right to pursue any damages against any OTHER persons found to be at fault in the accident.

Your brother shouldn't have signed ANY release without an actual dollar amount and money in hand. In fact, he should have had his OWN insurance company deal with the insurance company from the at-fault driver.

5k is the property damage minimum -

From: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm

Minimum liability insurance requirements for private passenger vehicles (California Insurance Code §11580.1b)

$15,000 for injury/death to one person.
$30,000 for injury/death to more than one person.
$5,000 for damage to property.

 

[ecmst12]

"This release expressly reserves all rights of the person or persons, (etc.) on whose behalf payment is made and the rights of all persons privy to or connected with them and reserves to them their right to pursue their legal remedies, if any, against any liable parties."

See the bolded portion - the release is saying that even though the insurance company is paying out the claim, the insured person can still sue you if they want. Generally, that wouldn't be wise, since the insurance company wouldn't be paying out if their driver wasn't clearly at fault. But legally they're not barred from trying.

But your brother, by signing the release, is now barred from suing. Or, I guess he could file, but the release would be a pretty convincing defense. Not sure exactly how that would work.

Of course, if he didn't sign it, he'd get nothing, and suing wouldn't get him any more than he's actually going to get. So signing was his best course of action.

And Sandy, first of all, you always have to sign the release BEFORE you get the check. There wouldn't be much point to sending the release after the check is paid, since there's no incentive to sign. If you want the check, you have to sign first. And if you'd read the original post, you'd know that his insurance company can't help since he has no collision coverage. I'm sure the number was on the release, he knows how much he'll be getting, they can't prepare the release without the dollar amount they are offering being known.

 

[Proseguru]

The release would be worthless if he does not get the compensation offered to get him to sign the release.

 

[ecmst12]

Yes, if he signs the release saying he won't sue in exchange for this money, and then he doesn't get the money, then he can still sue.