Question about a situation

[johnyrotten]

Sorry for the vague title, have no clue what else to title this. Back in August my truck was hit by a drunk driver, insurance covered everyone's damages (my truck was pushed into someone else's vehicle) nobody was hurt ect.ect. last night I got a letter from the district attorney talking about seeking restitution because I'm considered a "victim". More like the recipient of another's stupidity. I didn't lose an time from work, vehicles repaired (they waved the deductible nothing out of pocket), so I to me it's done and over. Other than this person dealing with the consequences of their actions. I'm not a greedy person by any means, so please don't look at this in that way. My question is, is it worth responding to this letter asking that they "get the book thrown at them"? Life has educated me many times,  and those lessons were hard learned,  maybe this individual needs the same? 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Hard one. To me it would probably depend on the guy's history, other "legal" issues, whether he's had similar priors, etc.

Trying to determine if he's a one-and-done kind of moron, or a habitual irresponsible violator making a string of bad decisions that cause harm to others is a tough call.

Past behavior is very often...but not always...an accurate predictor of future behavior.

 

[slusher]

I feel that I wouldn’t want to reply to the letter but what if he kills someone? Drunk drivers never seem to stop..

[Kromolly]

Was the at-fault party uninsured?  I assume "yes" and that's the reason the DA is considering restitution... correct?  Dealt with this a lot managing a public agency fleet.  Oddly enough, drivers under the influence had a tendency to run into law enforcement vehicles.  Restitution typically meant some small amount paid monthly until the damaged party was made whole.  If you did the math it might take 50 years for our agency to be made whole.  If the above is true and he was uninsured then I would think your insurance company would be filing suit against him to recover what they paid out for uninsured motorist coverage.  Maybe I'm not understanding the reason for restitution.  

[johnyrotten]

The whole situation was a mess, driver no insurance,  owner of the van had minimum and a history of insurance issues/fraud. Both myself and the other other vehicle full coverage,  and taken care of. I'm not out of pocket for anything,  including deductible,  I just think there's a lesson to be learned here, when this first happened I just wanted a few minutes to "speak" with the guy, I've calmed down since then. 

[Kromolly]

I think I would consult with my insurance company.  Since they covered the costs, they are now the party at loss.  Uninsured drivers cause all of our rates to be higher.  In my opinion they should be held accountable.  He gets an extra strike for being behind the wheel while under the influence.

[johnyrotten]

Owner of the van had the same company I do, which is why I believe they waved the deductible. Honestly, just sitting through a victim impact panel watching this guy get screamed on would be great to see, but that would never happen. 

[Tom Geiger]

If you were made whole with your vehicle repair and suffered no physical issues I’d let it go.  These guys never learn a lesson. 
 

I was in a similar situation where people were pushing me to sue. Like you, I’d considered my situation to be done with. But the revenge of “teaching them a lesson” and maybe getting a cash settlement had me thinking about it.

Then I realized a law suit would take years, and keep this all alive in my head. So I just walked away. I decided the best thing for me was to be done and over. The only ones who make out in these situations is the lawyers, which is why you got an ambulance chaser letter.

[Mike 1017]

 Me, I would want any $ that I am intitled to from that Drunks insurance company. After all it is not his money.

Sad note. My mother in-law died from an unavoidable accident. His fault. The driver was from out of a state which had a minimum of $20,000 liability insurance and of course he did not have a pot to piss in.

Mike

 

[johnyrotten]

2 hours ago, Kromolly said:

Was the at-fault party uninsured?  I assume "yes" and that's the reason the DA is considering restitution... correct?  Dealt with this a lot managing a public agency fleet.  Oddly enough, drivers under the influence had a tendency to run into law enforcement vehicles.  Restitution typically meant some small amount paid monthly until the damaged party was made whole.  If you did the math it might take 50 years for our agency to be made whole.  If the above is true and he was uninsured then I would think your insurance company would be filing suit against him to recover what they paid out for uninsured motorist coverage.  Maybe I'm not understanding the reason for restitution.  

Me either, and I don't believe I have any "loss". Trucks fixed, nobody's hurt, and this guys life is now more of a mess. Not being the "bigger guy", I almost think this letter is a "formality"

[LennyB]

My first thought is why is the District Attorney seeking retribution. Or are they just relaying the information that someone else has a lawsuit pending seeking retribution. Which I would think would have to be coming from the person who owns the third car, as we know it's not you.

Or is this an open case and the DA has to send out these letters and await a response before they can close it.

My wife was hit a few years back and our insurance company pushed to sue the other party. She was injured in this situation. The lawsuit went on for several years and other then a lot of aggravation wasn't worth the time spent. We got a stipend of which the lawyers took a big chunk and she has pain she has to live with the rest of her life. As with most lawsuits the only one who wins is the lawyers.

[Rodent]

I went through a similar situation a few years back. A drunk was having a meltdown on a freeway onramp after having his car break down. He decided that throwing rocks was good therapy and took out my windshield and put a good sized dent in my passenger rear door. Cops were called, he was arrested, drugs were found, etc. It cost me my $250 deductible, plus I upgraded my rental car to something other than the brown Kia Rio that Enterprise wanted to give me. I think I was out around $325 or so. I got a letter from the D.A. offering restitution. I sent them my receipts and I got a check from them about a month later. My insurance company was out around $3500, so I told the adjuster that the guy was being made to pay restitution. They couldn't have been less interested in recouping the money they paid for the claim.

[johnyrotten]

48 minutes ago, LennyB said:

My first thought is why is the District Attorney seeking retribution. Or are they just relaying the information that someone else has a lawsuit pending seeking retribution. Which I would think would have to be coming from the person who owns the third car, as we know it's not you.

Or is this an open case and the DA has to send out these letters and await a response before they can close it.

My wife was hit a few years back and our insurance company pushed to sue the other party. She was injured in this situation. The lawsuit went on for several years and other then a lot of aggravation wasn't worth the time spent. We got a stipend of which the lawyers took a big chunk and she has pain she has to live with the rest of her life. As with most lawsuits the only one who wins is the lawyers.

I'm thinking the open case thing, makes sense now that you mentioned it. Sorry to hear about your situation,  something that happens all too often that shouldn't. 

[bobthehobbyguy]

Although you could probably be compensated for the inconvenience I don't see that it would be worth your while. You.may get a judgement but may not be able to collect. And in addition you may have attorney costs that you would probably not get compensated for.

[johnyrotten]

9 minutes ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

Although you could probably be compensated for the inconvenience I don't see that it would be worth your while. You.may get a judgement but may not be able to collect. And in addition you may have attorney costs that you would probably not get compensated for.

It states right in the letter and included victims right pamphlet " no metal duress" or something along those lines 

[Big_John]

I've lost a bunch of friends to drunk drivers and drunk driving.  

At first blush, I was thinking that it was funny for the DA to contact you over what I would call a civil matter. 

Then thinking about it, the  DA is trying to get some sort of punishment for the drunk that hit you and the owner of the truck.  Since I live in New York State too, I can tell you the owner of the van is the one that has to be insured and not the driver.  I can also tell you from owning a company,  that the if the truck owner's insurance is commercial, they often don't cover any damage caused by someone driving under the influence.  We actually got a letter about it from the insurance company. 

The other thing is you may or may not have had some liability from your car striking someone else's.  I was told that if you get hit and you  get driven into another car, your insurance company may be responsible.  That may have changed, but a call to your company may be in order to see if  your premiums will increase.  

Since your insurance has paid for your car, that's great.  The insurance company is the one that will be compensated though.  

Chances are good, you (or your insurance co) will only see pennies rather than dollars, but both the owner and the driver sound like they are perpetual offenders, so some financial pain might be in order.  

So, I'd call the insurance company and speak to someone besides the agent that sold you the policy.  See what they say, but I'm in favor of getting these guys to pay for their actions.  Too many get away with this stuff only to do it again in a couple years.  

 

[johnyrotten]

1 minute ago, Big_John said:

I've lost a bunch of friends to drunk drivers and drunk driving.  

At first blush, I was thinking that it was funny for the DA to contact you over what I would call a civil matter. 

Then thinking about it, the  DA is trying to get some sort of punishment for the drunk that hit you and the owner of the truck.  Since I live in New York State too, I can tell you the owner of the van is the one that has to be insured and not the driver.  I can also tell you from owning a company,  that the if the truck owner's insurance is commercial, they often don't cover any damage caused by someone driving under the influence.  We actually got a letter about it from the insurance company. 

The other thing is you may or may not have had some liability from your car striking someone else's.  I was told that if you get hit and you  get driven into another car, your insurance company may be responsible.  That may have changed, but a call to your company may be in order to see if  your premiums will increase.  

Since your insurance has paid for your car, that's great.  The insurance company is the one that will be compensated though.  

Chances are good, you (or your insurance co) will only see pennies rather than dollars, but both the owner and the driver sound like they are perpetual offenders, so some financial pain might be in order.  

So, I'd call the insurance company and speak to someone besides the agent that sold you the policy.  See what they say, but I'm in favor of getting these guys to pay for their actions.  Too many get away with this stuff only to do it again in a couple years.  

 

My truck was legally parked, unattended, on a city street.  They were speeding according to the police report,  and drunk. The owner of the van had the bare minimum policy required by the state. Both the owner and driver are Spanish, English as a second language and if it was a company van, not a legit one. I spoke with my company,  they Said this will not impact my rate, and waved the deductible. But they were going after themselves,  we both have the same company. I was also told that ,because they were parked and unattended,  I was in the clear for any liability. If we were driving,  different story.

[johnyrotten]

I want to thank everyone for their insight with this, I had figured this was done and over with.  I think I'll call that office tomorrow and see, just out of curiosity. This whole thing was an education for me, guess it still is. Thanks again for all of the insight 

[1930fordpickup]

People that do this rarely ever change and they will never pay anyway. If you were injured this would be a different story.  

Please give us an explanation of why you got this letter if you can. It does not have to be word for word just the round about answer.

[espo]

I appreciate your understanding in this situation and also glad no one was injured luckily. I also had much the same situation many years ago while stopped waiting for someone to make an illegal left turn and got rear ended. The lady was driving her husband's company car since he was too drunk to drive at the time, although she was sighted for being drunk as well. Each situation is unique, and the individuals involved have to make their own decisions as to what should or shouldn't be done. The only thing I might add, and this is up to you alone. The extensive damage, while your truck was repaired, will show up on a Carfax if you should ever want to sell it and would be a consideration as to its value based on that damage. That may or may not make any difference to you but something to consider.  

[johnyrotten]

42 minutes ago, 1930fordpickup said:

People that do this rarely ever change and they will never pay anyway. If you were injured this would be a different story.  

Please give us an explanation of why you got this letter if you can. It does not have to be word for word just the round about answer.

I have no clue, I assumed this was done and over with in September, you can see the source of my confusion.

[johnyrotten]

39 minutes ago, espo said:

I appreciate your understanding in this situation and also glad no one was injured luckily. I also had much the same situation many years ago while stopped waiting for someone to make an illegal left turn and got rear ended. The lady was driving her husband's company car since he was too drunk to drive at the time, although she was sighted for being drunk as well. Each situation is unique, and the individuals involved have to make their own decisions as to what should or shouldn't be done. The only thing I might add, and this is up to you alone. The extensive damage, while your truck was repaired, will show up on a Carfax if you should ever want to sell it and would be a consideration as to its value based on that damage. That may or may not make any difference to you but something to consider.  

The trucks 13 years old, 70,000 on it as of today,  but with the damage,  value is gone. Not that I plan on getting rid of it. 

[johnyrotten]

Here's the letter I received. Personal info blocked of course. This is a hobby forum,  so I took the pics on my bench for laughs 

[FLHCAHZ]

I was in this exact situation, but in Pennsylvania.  I wasnt owed anything, so I let it go.  

[johnyrotten]

1 hour ago, FLHCAHZ said:

I was in this exact situation, but in Pennsylvania.  I wasnt owed anything, so I let it go.  

My take on it exactly, waiting for "government" to get to work and I'll call them to confirm. Thanks 

Edited December 19, 2024 by johnyrotten
Spelling