Originally Posted by thisMSGgood4me

The OP's insurance company will get a copy of the accident investigation report and will use it against the Honda driver, which will make it very difficult for that driver to dispute what happened if it ends up in court. You think insurance company attorneys don't know what they're doing? They handle cases like this all the time.

People who drive without insurance aren't usually completely asset-free. And even if they don't have much in the way of assets, they probably still have some kind of income that can be garnished under an ordered court judgment. May take some time to collect it all but they'll be on the hook for it until the judgment is fully satisfied.

Originally Posted by BackyardBuddy

So scary! I'm glad you were both OK!!

Originally Posted by thisMSGgood4me

Who says it would even go to trial? As you said in an earlier post, most of the time these issues are settled before having to take it to trial. But knowing that the Honda owner might have to hire an attorney should it go to trial would prompt her to settle. Remember, the insurance company already has a team of attorneys on salary so it doesn't matter to the insurance company. They just want what they paid out on the claim back.

And you'd be up against three who would dispute what you'd claim had happened. The OP, her passenger and most importantly the driver coming from the other direction who was an impartial eyewitness. You'd lose but it would be funny seeing you do it. Maybe you could get the dog to vouch for your story, huh?

Originally Posted by JR-01

Do you think the impartial witness would testify in court? If not, his version is useless since he couldn't be cross examined. It is all up to the judge who is more believable, the Honda driver or the OP and her best friend. We don't know how it really went down.
I do believe the insurance company would settle for pennies on the dollar instead of pursuing this case. I don't know where you live, but here, insurance companies teams of lawyers do not clog up the court system with car accident cases.

Originally Posted by thisMSGgood4me

in situations when an uninsured driver causes an accident. If simply pulled over, say for speeding, and the driver has no insurance, then the driver should be cited for such and the car impounded. Such a driver shouldn't be allowed to remain on the road and drive off after the traffic stop. JMO

Originally Posted by Studying4boards

Having no insurance should be automatic jail time in all states.

Originally Posted by CindysC5

Well, to those of you "Doubting Thomas's" here ya go!!!!

Originally Posted by CindysC5

Well, to those of you "Doubting Thomas's" here ya go!!!!

Originally Posted by thisMSGgood4me

Why do you think the impartial eyewitness wouldn't testify in court, especially if he's a local resident? I know I certainly would if asked to. And don't forget his statement would have (or should have) been taken by the cop during the accident investigation, and contrary to what you think, his statement from the investigation would in fact be admissible. The cop may have to testify but that shouldn't be a problem as cops are called to testify in court all the time as to their accident investigations. It's obvious to me you don't know as much as you think you do. As to believability, yes, it would be up to the judge, but then there's that pesky accident investigation report that comes into play, and it's pretty damn hard to tell the judge the cop got it wrong in his conclusion and have the judge believe that.

As for the insurance company settling "for pennies on the dollar instead of pursuing this case," it doesn't matter what you believe. As I said before, insurance companies are not in business to lose money when they can reasonably recover their payouts. They pursue cases, whether through settlement or if need be through trial, to recover as much as they can, and they don't give up if they can reasonably recover 100% of the claim amount. That's what they're paid to do, and that's what they do, whether you believe it or not. Besides, "car accident cases" don't really take up that much of a court's time on an individual basis as you might think. Judges can handle them pretty quickly, moving through a number of them in a day in short order. In this case, probably in an hour, two hours tops.

Originally Posted by Forcedvert

We know exactly what happened only one driver was in a Vette the other driver can't be trusted. People traveling with their dog always slam on the breaks to make a turn surprised the dog was not hurt.The only thing I can't figure out is...if the Honda was on the brakes that hard while turning (skidding) how did it end up square on the hood of the Vette and not spun out or on its roof? Must have been in the same lane at time of collision? ....We don't know what happened, but this is my guess...blame to rear driver, like most people have experienced or at best shared blame. Front car was in front and got slowed down rear car hit front car in the rear not the side, or car would have spun out, that's how it happens in nascar! Maybe I'm wrong? Better pics of Honda would tell the story. I put this all in my crash simulator and this is what it showed

I hope no one gets sued including op! I would hate to see someone driving a car with no insurance get rewarded!

Originally Posted by Forcedvert

I stand corrected, sorry for doubting, but you could have blurred out her personal info, I would if I was you, she did not ask to be on this forum.

Originally Posted by CindysC5

Thank you for that Forcedvert!!! I was so excited to get that report up, plus didn't know how to blurr it out! If you can be so kind as to do that for me, I will delete this one and put your changed one up!! TY!!

Originally Posted by CindysC5

Well, to those of you "Doubting Thomas's" here ya go!!!!

Originally Posted by thisMSGgood4me

Congrats, Cindy, I didn't doubt your story. I've seen that kind of situation/near accident/actual accident happen a number of times before in my over four decades behind the wheel, and in virtually all cases, it's the one making the sudden lane change who's at fault, even though some people want to blame the rear-ender for the accident. Glad to see it's going to work out in your favor. Really didn't have a doubt that it would.

Originally Posted by Black 02

Well I'll give you credit for coming through with the report. I was wrong in my assumptions, still question the smoke but I'll let it go.

My only suggestion would be to remove all of the personal info on the report. People on here don't need to know your full name, policy number, address and other info.

Originally Posted by thisMSGgood4me

And yet still no apology. Shame on you, JR.

Besides, she didn't say 75-100 feet, she said 50-75 feet. Go back and read the OP's initial post again if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by Black 02

Well I'll give you credit for coming through with the report. I was wrong in my assumptions, still question the smoke but I'll let it go.

My only suggestion would be to remove all of the personal info on the report. People on here don't need to know your full name, policy number, address and other info.