Geico is Evil

[Mike703]

What is the name of your state? Virginia


I was involved in an a 3-car accident this past OCtober (2004). The insurance company of the person I hit (Geico) is suing me for damages they had to pay to the people she hit. Geico had pretty much started harrassing me shortly after the accident stating that they believed I caused the accident (even though the accident was still under investigation) and used scare tactics to get me to pay even though there was no final word as to who was at fault. It was later found that I was NOT AT FAULT in the accident and did not hear anymore from Geico soon after. Yesterday I recieved a summons stating that Geico is now trying to sue me for damages + interest. I have no intention of paying them and do not understand who they are able to sue somebody for damages even though they are not at fault?

The question I have is does Geico have any merit in this case?? Second question is can I just prove that I was not at fault in the accident and get these idiots off my back once and for all??

Any help I can get would be GREATLY appreciated!!

 

[racer72]

No one can answer your question unless you give the details of the accident. Insurance companies have the right to seek compensation for claims and you have provided no defense that you could not be held liable.

 

[MandyD]

Where is YOUR insurance in all of this?

 

[stephenk]

"It was later found that I was NOT AT FAULT in the accident "

Who made that determination?

 

[Mike703]

OK...a couple variables here. At the time I did not have insurance. I was originally ticketed with "following too closely" but was later found not guilty in court. The accident really was her fault because she was not paying attention and slammed on her brakes to avoid hitting a broke down car on the highway. I was behind her and tried to brake also but my brakes locked and because it was wet outside, slid right into her car and she hit the disabled car. On my driving record it states that I was involved with the accident but was not at fault. (my insurance company verified that). So should I get a lawyer?

 

[MandyD]

You can get a lawyer if you want to throw good money after bad. You really have to think about what you'd be paying an attorney and then add what you'll be paying in damages. Is it worth it?

 

[Mike703]

You can get a lawyer if you want to throw good money after bad. You really have to think about what you'd be paying an attorney and then add what you'll be paying in damages. Is it worth it?

So you're saying that I would have to pay even if the accident wasn't my fault? I was doing everything right in this situation. So you mean to tell me all I have to do to get my car fixed is to go out on the highway and slam my brakes in front of somebody and get hit from behind?

 

[dannysmyboy]

So you're saying that I would have to pay even if the accident wasn't my fault? I was doing everything right in this situation. So you mean to tell me all I have to do to get my car fixed is to go out on the highway and slam my brakes in front of somebody and get hit from behind?

How can you have done everything right, when you were driving without insurance to start with????

 

[bdancer]

I can't believe you got out of that "following too close" ticket! The car in front of you slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting a broken down car. And you weren't able to stop .... mmmm ... maybe because you were following too close for the speed.

 

[stephenk]

burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of evidence only. the fact you hit the car ahead of you makes you liable for the damages to that car. If you had been driving slower and farther back from the car ahead you would have been able to stop in time.

the fact you beat the ticket has no bearing on the civil case against you for the damages.

 

[Dougthegreat]

I was doing everything right in this situation.

Except driving without insurance. Oh, and following too closely. Oh, and driving at an unsafe speed for the road conditions.

Aim low. You'll never disappoint yourself when you achieve the mediocre.

 

[Mike703]

I can't believe you got out of that "following too close" ticket! The car in front of you slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting a broken down car. And you weren't able to stop .... mmmm ... maybe because you were following too close for the speed.

mmmm......maybe it was still wet outside from the rain and my brakes locked (which is actually what happened. She still should have been paying attention. You dont just slam on your brake on a highway during rush hour (you'll cause an accident)

 

[Mike703]

burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of evidence only. the fact you hit the car ahead of you makes you liable for the damages to that car. If you had been driving slower and farther back from the car ahead you would have been able to stop in time.

the fact you beat the ticket has no bearing on the civil case against you for the damages.

I was at least 2 car lenghts behind the car in front of me (sorry to disappoint those who keep believeing that i wwas right on this car's ass). When my brakes locked I slid right into the car. Was not a matter of how fast I was going (below the speed limit btw) or how far back I was driving.

 

[Mike703]

Except driving without insurance. Oh, and following too closely. Oh, and driving at an unsafe speed for the road conditions.

Aim low. You'll never disappoint yourself when you achieve the mediocre.

Maybe we should ask ALL of the facts first before going to assumptions.....

 

[Dougthegreat]

I was at least 2 car lenghts behind the car in front of me (sorry to disappoint those who keep believeing that i wwas right on this car's ass). When my brakes locked I slid right into the car. Was not a matter of how fast I was going (below the speed limit btw) or how far back I was driving.

"Two Car Lengths" is an outdated and inadequte rubric, especially when it's wet outside. So as to avoid future accidents that couldn't possibly be caused by you, the idea now is to leave at least two to three seconds distance from the car in front of you in normal conditions - two car lengths just doesn't cut it at higher speeds, because you technically don't even have enough reaction time at that point to hit the brake before impact!

Besides that, "following too closely" doesn't connotate any specific distance, just that you were following the car in front of you too close to be safe - in this case, you hit someone, which could easily indicate you were following too closely. However, since you claim you were found not guilty of this, I guess it can't be true, right .

As for not slamming on the brakes on the highway, I'd suggest you take some of your own "ask about all the facts" advice before you decide it was unwarranted - believe it or not, there are legitimate problems that can stop a car reeeeeeeeal quick!

FURTHERMORE, I don't see how you can be in the business of giving out advice when you make a habit of driving two car lengths and are UNINSURED.