Accident involving small claims suit, uninsured motorist

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

angelat

New Member
State: California

While driving on the freeway and changing lanes legally a vehicle slammed into me from behind, who apparently did not see the now occupied section of road. We both pulled over and exchanged information and at that time decided to 'settle' to avoid getting our insurance rates hiked.

At any rate - she called me a day later to discuss. The front of her car suffered far more damage than my steel truck bumper on the rear. She told me that she wanted me to pay her $2500 repair bill for damage to the hood of her car. I told her I thought that was kind of funny, considering she rear ended ME. So I refused to pay her anything.

So now I've been served with papers for small claims court. Should be a walk in the park, right? But wait - it gets hairier. I find out that my insurance expired at midnight TWO DAYS BEFORE the incident. So now I'm scratching my head like crazy trying to figure out how to walk out of this unscathed.

Does the fact that we're going into small claims court make me immune from the fact that I was driving without insurance? I'm guessing not. But on the other hand- does it make me 100% culpable for damages, even if I was obeying the rules of the road and THEY were the ones too busy texting on their phone to pay attention to traffic?

Any idea how I should handle this? I'm terrified of having my license suspended.

I didn't document anything at the scene of the accident because damage to my vehicle seemed negligible at the time (though 20 minutes later, my vehicle stopped operating - which I have documentation of - i.e. towing receipt and repair shop bills - possibly related to accident - i'm unsure).

Can anyone suggest how to handle this? Should I just make my best case - trying to illustrate in court my version of the story?

Any help would be appreciated.
 
The first thing you need to do is understand one basic point, and that is the fact that your insurance is there to cover a loss. If you don't have insurance, then you are personally responsible to pay any damages you cause.

What I would do is go and get a new policy. It won't cover the accident, however if the fact that you didn't have insurance comes up, at least you can show you have remedied that situation. But since you are not at fault in the accident, that should not even come up. All you need to do in court is state that she rear ended you, the damaged to your cars is proof of that, and from that she is the one responsible for the accident.

I would also file a counter-suit against her for the damages to your vehicle. So it will be a double whammy for her. She will loose her case, and should loose the counter-suit.

It may be illegal to drive without insurance, however unless there is some specific law about this, not having insurance would not change the fact that she was the one who caused the accident. Whatever you do, DON'T bring up the fact that your insurance had lapsed.
 
If you haven't done so already, get your insurance renewed.

You were both uninsured at the time of the accident, which is certainly not good for either of you, but I don't expect a judge would jump all over that if you can show in court that you have since remedied the problem.

Generally, when you are hit from behind it is the other person's fault, but there could be circumstances that change that, such as you moving over quickly as a vehicle is passing through your blind spot. Regardless of speed, you must make certain it is safe to make the lane change.

You will need to paint a picture in court that shows you as a perfect angel checking mirrors and looking over your shoulder as well as making proper signal in advance of the lane change (not during as so many people do). How long after the lane change were you struck? The longer the time between the lane change and the impact, the better off you are.

Last, California requires you to file an SR-1 form to show proof of financial responsibility for any accident which results in damage greater than $700. If you are going to court, rest assured DMV will get wind of your accident and will be sending you a notice of suspension unless you submit SR-1. Even if you did not have insurance at the time of the accident you are required to submit it. If the other party already submitted it, you don't want to be the one that failed to report.

The judge will be looking at settling the value of the damage and who will pay for what (and I suspect you will both be left to pay your own damages). The DMV will not hesitate to suspend your license though.... but if you submit SR-1 and show you have since renewed your insurance you may minimize your damages. It is possible that you will both receive a fine for not having insurance.
 
Your case illustrates precisely why the police should always be called whenever one is involved in an auto accident.

The other party, more than likely discovered you were uninsured. I mean, didn't you provide her with your insurance information at the scene? Surely you observed, if you did that your insurance was no longer valid, right? If you didn't, what did you provide to the other party?

Once she determined that you were uninsured, she sought to extort $2,500 out of you. Generally, if one is struck from behind, the other party is responsible. You now know you should have called the police. But, you knew at the scene that if you did, you'd be cited for having no insurance.

That could have been remedied, even after the fact, had you simply renewed your 48 hour oversight. That brings us to the lawsuit. More than likely, you can present a solid defense. But, it might appear to a judge that you acted the way you did, to cover up the fact that you knew you were uninsured.

Have you subsequently reactivated your expired policy? If you have, defend the lawsuit. Anyone can explain away a one time lapse of memory. If, by chance, you still have no auto insurance, I suggest you try to settle this case.
 
Thanks for your responses thus far. I didn't renew the insurance directly after that because I was so freaked out I just stopped driving for a few weeks. But it's renewed now.

I was just hoping there was a way that I could prevent the issue from coming up in court at all... and that since it was SMALL CLAIMS court that maybe it's a little bit less connected to civil courts and the possible connections to auto insurance and collateral problems that civil court might ensue.

I received no notice from the DMV thus far regarding an SR-1 being filed... but who knows.

To answer a few questions. I checked my insurance the second I was hit (form in the glove compartment) and found out then. I disclosed that to the other driver.

The other driver WAS insured. But she refused to show me HER license OR insurance forms after I showed her mine.

I know we SHOULD have called the police... but as there was little apparent damage to my car and she agreed to do it 'off the books' - the only thing I would have got from that would be a suspended license.

The rub is this: If I get my license suspended my livelihood is out the window and I lose EVERYTHING - so from that perspective I guess it makes sense I try to settle with the other party (though I have no money to settle) and agree to guilt and their claim as losing my license (possible i guess) would be far more damaging to me... but I can't bring myself (even if I had that kind of cash floating around) to do that as it would be more than a little bit morally disturbing for me... for reasons that should be clear...

I'm wondering if there's anyway I can try to verbally quash any discussion of insurance if it comes up in court... or suggest that that issue be looked at only if I'm shown to be culpable...
 
I'm sure the subject of insurance will be broached. If it is, no, you can't stop the discussion.

You can try to fight it, but I'll bet the other party brings four witnesses to court with her. I suspect she will say they were in her car and saw everything. Get ready to get dirty, real dirty. I'm sure she has a trick or two up her sleeve. You'll be surprised and never see it coming until you've been sucker punched!
 
You aren't going to get your license suspended... not if you can show that you have renewed your insurance.

If you fill out the SR-1 and provide as much info as you can about the other driver then the DMV will send that driver a notice with a notice of suspension if they don't respond and provide insurance info. You can then get the insurance info from the DMV and make your claim. Your not having insurance at the time of the accident does not change the fact that the other person was likely at fault for having rear-ended you.

The SR-1 was supposed to have been submitted within 10 days or so, but you can still submit it late.
 
Being that you have your insurance back in order should take care of that issue. If it gets brought up simply state that you didn't realize it had lapsed, but you immediately got it re-instated. There should be no further issue.

What you have to remember is that just because your insurance had lapsed does not change the fact that she is still at fault for the accident. You can also show that the damage is to the rear of your car.

If she does bring someone as a witness that was not actually there I would bring this up to the judge. She will no doubt then contest this saying "yes he/she was". Then ask "OK, who was with me in the car" or some other similar question that they are not prepared to answer. Something that if they had been there, they would very obviously know the answer to.
 
Thanks for the responses people. I appreciate the perspective.

The weird thing is - there was ZERO damage to the rear of my car... since I have a big steel 4x4 bumper on the back. Maybe a scratch - but you really can't tell. So that just makes it weird in court I should think. I'm not sure what the point of bringing a photo with a 'no damage' condition would be... seems I just shouldn't bother bringing anything??

As for insurance. Well - I'm still super paranoid since I did that once YEARS ago and got suspended. So that still gives me the jitters. I thought I'd learned my lesson...!

But as for that... honestly, doesn't something called the FIFTH AMENDMENT to the US Constitution give me the right not to further incriminate myself in a court?? Couldn't I just say in response to a pointed question one of the following:

"My understanding is that the fifth amendment gives me the right not to disclose that information your honor" (I understand that I might be irritating the judge in doing this... but they shouldn't have any cause to object!)

or

"My understanding is that we are here in court today to settle the issue of whether or not I am at fault for causing damage to the other person's property" and repeat it as often as necessary...
 
The fifth amendment applies only to criminal proceedings. It's applicable to keep the government from screwing the citizenry. In fact, all of our constitutional rights are related to how the government is to behave, not how citizens treat each other.

I suggest you avoid giving those answers. It won't just annoy the judge, it'll cause you to lose. You might even find yourself held in contempt.
 
Last edited:
thanks for your thoughts...

forgive me if i'm mistaken please... but that's not WHY the fifth amendment exists - to prevent us from screwing ourselves in this way..? I mean if it applies with a traffic stop and with something as basic as reading miranda rights... why would it not apply in other places..? or do I have totally the wrong idea about small claims court?? It doesn't exist simply to resolve a difference in opinion between 'citizens'?
 
The fifth amendment would not apply here. There are two types of trials - criminal and civil. Criminal is when you are being charge with a crime and are at a trial. That's when you can apply the 5th. This is a civil case. It's a dispute between you and another party, not between you and the state. You do not face jail time for this, therefor the 5th cannot be used.

You do need to answer the questions the judge asks, and while you do need to answer fully, don't volunteer anything further. But, as has been stated, you need to stop worrying so much about the insurance. It has been resolved. You were not at fault for the accident. The other party is trying to make the no insurance thing a pivotal point to the case, and it's not.

You simply need to testify that she rear ended you. Again, prepare for her to bring a bogus witness. You need to think of something that a witness would not have missed such as if there was another person in the car with you or about what time of day was the accident., but it needs to be something that the other party probably wouldn't think to coach the witness on. You want to catch the witness in a lie that will discredit the witness completely.

Ultimately the fact that she rear ended you should pretty much unravel her case. And if she does bring a bogus witness then she's really toast. I would still find a reason to counter sue. If you are missing work, then claim lost wages plus your court cost for filing. Might as well make her pay you.

Also while in court you need to bring up the fact that she refused to give you her insurance info.
 
thanks... that helps... though I'm not writing off losing the license due to non-insurance. I'll definitely try to avoid volunteering info though... perhaps it doesn't hurt that she's already committed perjury on the small claims subpoena by claiming I hit her... she'll have photos of the FRONT of her damaged car though.... so I'm not sure how she'll pull that off.
 
If she's claiming you hit her than be prepared for her to say that you changed lanes too close to her. The main defense to that would be where is the damage on her car. If it's right in front then that looks better for you. If it's damaged at all to the side, that's better for her.
 
it's right on the front.. and I didnt' change lanes too close at all - there was a TON of space - she came out of nowhere... I'm guessing she was using the far right feeder lane for high speed passing and/or texting on her phone at the same time (?) but I can only guess...

The trial is today - I will try to delay since I only got five days notice between subpoena and trial so I can launch a countersuit and/or subpoena the evidence on their side...
 
angela_t said:
Couldn't I just say in response to a pointed question one of the following:

"My understanding is that the fifth amendment gives me the right not to disclose that information your honor" (I understand that I might be irritating the judge in doing this... but they shouldn't have any cause to object!)

or

"My understanding is that we are here in court today to settle the issue of whether or not I am at fault for causing damage to the other person's property" and repeat it as often as necessary...
Click to expand...

You COULD say that... but you REALLY don't want to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top