To Lawyer Up or Not to Lawyer Up, That is the question...(advice sought)

very true

apparently the legislature has already determined leaving a key in the car is criminally stupid, but only mildly so

still, I think the Audi guy loses and it may be negligence per se

 

This is the point I was trying to make also. I am sure a court might make the owner of the Audi pay, although, I would highly doubt it. Even if a court rules comparative negligence (like a 10/90 like somebody talked about), whatever the 10% you recover would probably be eaten up in lawyer fees.

The Audi owner's insurance company will tell him to go pound salt though. Insurance companies don't cover damages when a vehicle is stolen and not in the owner's possession and they usually only cover liability when the owner of the vehicle is at fault when operating the vehicle.

I have never ever seen a victim's insurance company pay for damage that a thief caused when operating his automobile.

Maynard,

If I were in your dad's shoes, I would file UIM and pay the $250 deductible. UIM claims usually don't make your premiums increase unless you already have a bad accident history. Furthermore, you will spend alot more than $250 trying to get a judgement against the Audi owner.

 

amen...you're going to spend a ton of time and resources suing a guy who probably won't be able to pay you anything.

 

I hope you get this resolved.

 

I was actually talking about suing the Audi driver. lol Hell be able to pay, but he sure as hell won't want to without a fight in court.

 

are you sure he'll be able to pay?? just because you drive an Audi, doesn't mean you have property that's not exempt under the Texas Property Code.

and you're exactly right...if you spend a bunch of time fighting in court, what other opportunities are you losing?

 

To the original poster:

If you have full coverage, you will have coverage which will pay your loss. Your focus should be on your insurer. Let them worry about whether Audi has to pay.

PIP will pay for the treatment of injuries, loss of income and pain and suffering of your parents, up to the limit, which is probably either $2500 or $5000 (although I don't recall without checking).

Uninsured motorist will apply, but only if you can't identify the Audi owner, or if you do and he's uninsured. If he is insured, it will still be largely up to your insurer whether to pursue a claim against the Audi or his insurer.

Some are not drawing a distinction between holding the Audi driver responsible and making his insurer pay. I've no doubt he is not covered for allowing his auto to be stolen by leaving the keys in it while it was running. But his lack of insurance doesn't protect him from liability.

Those who are speculating on comparative negligence are doing it wrong. He is 100% negligent on the issue of leaving the car unlocked, the key in it, and the motor running. There is no comparative negligence submission which would allow the jury to pick anyone but the Audi driver on that particular cause of negligence.

Comparative negligence simply doesn't work like some of you are imagining. On the issue of leaving the keys in the car, the Audi driver would likely be found 100% negligent, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries.

Juries answer questions which are called SPECIAL ISSUES. Each cause of action submitted has a series of SPECIAL ISSUES which come from the Texas Pattern Jury Charges. In a case of negligence, multiple theories will be submitted to the jury. One cause of action is that Defendant Audi was negligent by leaving his auto running with the key in it and the door unlocked.

The initial question in one series will ask if he was negligent in doing so.

Then another question will ask if such negligence (if and only if found in the prior question) was a proximate cause of the injuries suffered by plaintiffs.


What I am saying is this: Plaintiffs can hang this whole case on the Audi, and it's not even a hard call under the law. Plaintiffs do not have to sue everyone they can. But the injured should resort to their own insurance policy before hiring any attorney.

 

I understand that...but what good does getting a judgment saying he's liable do if the guy can't pay? We always tell our clients, "There's no magic money machine at the courthouse where judgments get turned into cash right after the trial."

So if these people expend a ton of energy and resources suing a guy who is judgment-proof, then suing the guy is not, in my opinion, good advice.

 

see my comments


first, see what his insurer is going to pay

then, let them see if it (his insurer) wants to pursue a claim v. the Audi driver

He should determine if he has PIP and UM. PIP will cover the medical and lost income, and UM will cover auto repair and loss of use.

he should NOT file suit unless MOM is seriously injured, and therefore likely to have damages far in excess of 5 thousand $

 

cool..i misunderstood...my bad.

 

Where the heck is Lynus.

Lynus is an insurance claims adjuster who is purposely avoiding this thread like the plague.

 

*cough* My advice isn't good enough as Lynus'??

 

Lynus has more street cred cuz he knows Pornstars are people too.

Pornstars are people too - Lynus

 

RIET,

I have court cred though.


BTW Friendly Fan,

When I was talking about courts and comparative negligence, I was refering to more of a pre-trial, mediation/arbitration process where ruling partial liability is an option.

 

If you can . .. ALWAYS LAWYER UP

Rocket River

 

Are you also an insurance claims adjuster?

 

No, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.