California Accident Law

If you are driving without car insurance California then you can lose all your rights. If you have an accident and your damages are more than $750, then you must report your accident to the DMV or you will get a ticket.

If you are caught driving without car insurance California State and you are in a car accident, the state will bar any recovery you might have. California has enacted the “no pay and no play” rule, and it essentially means that driving without car insurance in California will take any tort recovery that you would be entitled otherwise.

Believe it or not driving without car insurance California is a very common problem. In 2006, it was estimated that more than 20% of drivers in this state are not properly insured. This law has been criticized as too harsh, but in reality is making more people buy insurance and lower the cost of premiums for everyone.

The theory is that if there are no uninsured drivers, then the premium that you pay will not go to pay damages that were caused by people that do not pay insurance. The “driving without car insurance California” regulations is being followed by other legislatures around the country. They are ready to start enacting similar regulations targeting people that drive without insurance.

Even if laws like driving without car insurance California Style applies, the Pure Comparative Fault analysis would apply. Pure Comparative Fault means which allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99 percent at fault (recover the 1% they were not responsible for), although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party's degree of fault (reduced by 99%).

So the law driving without car insurance California will only shield the person that hit someone without insurance. The person without insurance losses all rights the person that did have insurance.

However, since California follows the Pure Comparative Fault, the percentage of liability could be split. Say there is a 50 – 50 % split.

Then what? How does the driving without car insurance California regulation would change the scenario? The party with insurance would be entitled for his recovery buy only at 50%. So if the damages amounted to $100,000, then that party could collect $50,000.

The party with no insurance would be barred completely even if the damages were $1,000,000. The collection of the $50,000 would be difficult without uninsured motorist  coverages. California has adopted the “pure comparative fault” in Liv v. Yellow Cab, 119 Cal. Rptr. 858 (1975).

Property Damage Notes (Diminished value claim in California)

The California Court of Appeals in Ray v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 200 Cal. App.3d 1411, 246 Cal. Rptr. 593 (Cal. App. Dist. 3, 1988) concluded: “We will not rewrite an otherwise unambiguous limitation of collision coverage to provide for a risk not bargained for. To the extent Ray's automobile was repaired to its pre-accident safe, mechanical, and cosmetic condition, Farmer's obligation under the policy of insurance to repair to ‘like kind and quality’ was discharged.”

Also, in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 215 Cal. App.3d 1435, 264 Cal. Rptr. 269 (1989), the court held: "‘Diminution in market value’ is not a ‘peril’ at all; it is a method of measuring damages. As was stated in Geddes: ‘The measure of damages is the diminution in the market value of the building ...’ (Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., supra, 51 Cal.2d 558, 565...).

This language from Geddes was quoted by the either court to support its conclusion that the diminution in the market value of the home was a ‘separate and distinct’ loss. (Citations omitted).

 Damage to other property could be measured by the repair or replacement cost or by the diminution in value to the entire property caused by the presence of the defective product. ...neither diminution in value nor the cost of repair or replacement are active physical forces - they are not the cause of the damage to the structures; they are the measure of the loss or damage. ... Diminution of market value is not specifically excluded because it is not a ‘cause’ of loss; it is the measure of a loss caused by something else.” again if you are caught driving without car insurance California then then diminution of value claims would not apply.

Recovery for tort damages is therefore limited to the difference between the fair market value of the object before the loss and its value after the loss.  Whether that is enough to repair or replace the item of property then it is irrelevant. 

Also see, Moran v. California Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 139 Cal. App.4  688, 43 Cal. Rptr.3d 116 (Cal. App. Dist. 4, 2006), where the insured tried to have the state remove a “salvage title” because it diminished the value of the vehicle.

But if you or the party that was driving without car insurance California then no dimished value would apply to them anyway.

To read more about driving without car insurance California rule and other laws click here.

Enter your search termsSubmit search form   Web www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com

ADD TO YOUR SOCIAL BOOKMARKS: Blink Del.icio.us Digg
Furl Google Simpy Spurl Technorati Y! MyWeb