Quote:
Originally Posted by trader4
Why are you now obfuscating by dragging insurance in? Let's say
I have no insurance on the house or the insurance lapsed. Let's
say the person who wrecks the house has no insurance on their
car either. It's simple. They drive their car into my house causing
damage. I have no obligation to rebuild the house in
order to have a valid legal claim against the party that ran into my
house. My damages are real and provable. And if the legal system
worked like you claimed it work, people like the poster or the owner
of the house here, would be screwed. You'd insist that I rebuild the
house before I could win a lawsuit? How about I don't have the
$100K sitting around to spend on the chance that I later *might*
win and collect? Now what? No lawsuit, just get lost?
This argument:
"If you didn't pay anything, then you suffered nothing"
is totally bogus. In some cases, it may not even be possible for
me to pay something to get it fixed. Let's say you came into my
house to do some
work and you negligently let a ladder fall, it hit a piece of art
and severely damaged it. It's one of a kind, I can't, replace it.
An art expert says there is no way to fix it. So, now what?
I can't collect? That would be some fine mess. In reality, all
that matters is what the value of it was before and what the
value of it is now. That is what my damages are, that is what
a court works with. What I do with the money I collect, is up
to me.
And further, now you want to argue over whether it's $27K?
Who cares. I used that number because it was about
what the poster said BMW quoted. Obviously there are a range
of options. But it does raise another good point as to the
inherent nonsense of your argument. In your world, you are
claiming that the poster has to get it fixed before he knows
how much he will possibly collect. He could get $5K, $10K, $27K,
or nothing at all. If he were required to FIX it and spend the
money without knowing if he could ever collect at all, just
so he can file a suit, it would be one screwed up legal system.
Fortunately the way it works, you can file the suit, see if
you collect, and
then based on what you receive, decide what you want to do.
That is assuming you don't need the vehicle in the meantime.
|
If the person didn't have insurance and you didn't, what happens if they have no money? Sure you could win in court, but you aren't going to collect anything. Who in the end loses? You were at fault and so were they; for not having insurance. There are many times people win a court case but yet never collect as they are just going to have to keep going to court in the hopes that they can collect.
Next, how do you file a lawsuit for a $25k remanufactured engine when the vehicle isn't even worth that? The OP cannot go for a remanufactured engine.
Quote:
In reality, all
that matters is what the value of it was before and what the
value of it is now.
|
So you are saying the vehicle is now worth a negative $6k? $21k - $27k = -$6k. All he could hope to go for was a used engine to be installed. The Op would need several quotes all detailed exactly what failed for a court to consider it. It is the plaintiff that needs to prove the damages; far easier to prove when you have paid it. Anyone can get a "quote" that shows a high amount. The MB dealer could also request to see the vehicle and could come up with part A failed and it will cost $100 and another $300 for labor. Will the engine ever be the same? Probably not, but it gets the MB dealer into paying far less. If the OP got three quotes and then did the work, the MB dealer would have a much harder case to prove that the work wasn't required. The judge is the one that needs to make the determination of what was actually required.