Automotive

Hit & Run, Insurance Deductible

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 18th, 2019 11:50 am
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2008
6229 posts
2289 upvotes

Hit & Run, Insurance Deductible

My friend was the victim of a hit & run. The other person abandoned their car at the scene (undriveable), police were able to retrieve ownership papers but no drivers license. Insurance told my friend, even though police recorded plate & ownership papers of the alleged, my friend might have to pay deductible, if the owner of the other car claims their car was stolen &/or they're unable to determine who was driving the other car. Turns out the other car is also insured by the same company as my friend. Does this sound right?
32 replies
Deal Addict
Dec 20, 2015
3440 posts
1760 upvotes
Toronto, ON
HP_John wrote: My friend was the victim of a hit & run. The other person abandoned their car at the scene (undriveable), police were able to retrieve ownership papers but no drivers license. Insurance told my friend, even though police recorded plate & ownership papers of the alleged, my friend might have to pay deductible, if the owner of the other car claims their car was stolen &/or they're unable to determine who was driving the other car. Turns out the other car is also insured by the same company as my friend. Does this sound right?
Wouldn't the ownership have the owner of the vehicle? They should be charged in this case, regardless of who was driving it.

You clearly have the license plate and ownership information, that should be all that is enough. Police report is a plus.
If you like the post or the comment, then don't forget to SMASH that LIKE BUTTON!
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2008
6229 posts
2289 upvotes
lamboman wrote: Wouldn't the ownership have the owner of the vehicle? They should be charged in this case, regardless of who was driving it.

You clearly have the license plate and ownership information, that should be all that is enough. Police report is a plus.
That's what my friend told insurance, but insurance is saying if the owner of the car claims their car was stolen, my friend will have to pay deductible. Considering the other person was willing to abandon their car by fleeing the scene on foot, it would not be surprising if this person claimed their car was stolen
Banned
Apr 5, 2013
5810 posts
2968 upvotes
keenland
what if what if what if...when you are hit and run...there is no other party...you have a non at fault claim ..period...because the other car was stolen , drunk , whatever is not your problem...you have insurance, you have the cause vehicle...everything else is BS.
Deal Expert
Aug 2, 2001
16745 posts
6969 upvotes
You need to provide your province. For example in Manitoba you pay the deductible if the driver is unknown:

Stolen vehicles

If your vehicle is damaged by a stolen vehicle, we’ll reimburse your deductible when the following conditions are met:

We know the identity of the person who stole the vehicle.
The person who stole the vehicle doesn’t dispute being responsible.

Your deductible also applies on a claim for hit-and-run damage. But if we know who was responsible, we’ll try to get your deductible back for you.

https://www.mpi.mb.ca/Pages/your-deductible.aspx

Further the other driver cannot simply claim the vehicle was stolen, they would have to file a police report indicating such. Imagine how easy it would be to just say "Oh it was stolen" without having the go to the police to fill out the appropriate forms/reports.
Deal Addict
Dec 20, 2015
3440 posts
1760 upvotes
Toronto, ON
...And while your at it, get a dash cam dude.
If you like the post or the comment, then don't forget to SMASH that LIKE BUTTON!
Deal Addict
Mar 8, 2007
1449 posts
134 upvotes
lamboman wrote: Wouldn't the ownership have the owner of the vehicle? They should be charged in this case, regardless of who was driving it.
The law does not work like that.

You have no evidence (yet) of who was driving at the time of the accident.

Unless you are referring to being found 'at fault' for the accident. Then yes, it would be applied to whoever is on the insurance tied to the vehicle.
Buy/Sell/Trade with confidence, 50+ positive feedback.
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2008
6229 posts
2289 upvotes
This is Ontario, my friend did not have a dash cam. Police told him he is not at fault, on the police report they have the owner of the other vehicle & the other vehicles info eg make model licence plate. Just that the other driver fled the scene on foot, so insurance said if the other car turns out to be stolen, my friend still has to pay $1000 deductible. Seems unfair but what do I know
Banned
Mar 11, 2016
2081 posts
867 upvotes
the only time you would not pay the deductible is if the other driver is 100% at fault and has valid ins...then THEIR company pays your deductible...otherwise it is your cost
Deal Addict
Mar 8, 2007
1449 posts
134 upvotes
Fjr2005 wrote: the only time you would not pay the deductible is if the other driver is 100% at fault and has valid ins...then THEIR company pays your deductible...otherwise it is your cost
I think this is technically incorrect.

Ontario has 'no fault' insurance, your company always covers the costs and then recoups it from other parties (assuming non at-fault accident).
Buy/Sell/Trade with confidence, 50+ positive feedback.
Sr. Member
User avatar
May 21, 2018
601 posts
562 upvotes
Were the keys left in the car as well? Were there any other signs to indicate the car was stole? Broken window? Ignition tampered with? Did your friend get a description of the person who ran away?
Don't forget to goo your attic!
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2008
6229 posts
2289 upvotes
ctrueman82 wrote: I think this is technically incorrect.

Ontario has 'no fault' insurance, your company always covers the costs and then recoups it from other parties (assuming non at-fault accident).
My friend & the other driver both have the same insurance company, I don't know if that matters
Deal Addict
Sep 2, 2004
2364 posts
684 upvotes
ctrueman82 wrote: I think this is technically incorrect.

Ontario has 'no fault' insurance, your company always covers the costs and then recoups it from other parties (assuming non at-fault accident).
Not quite. In the no fault provinces both parties go to their own insurance and there is no recovery from the other party.

OP, interesting scenario. They might have been better off getting hit by somebody with no insurance and they would then have a $300. My guess is the other party was drunk. Your friend couldnt give a description of the driver? This is potential fraud so the insurance company should take it pretty seriously (More investigation, statements etc)
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2008
6229 posts
2289 upvotes
Capt. wrote: Not quite. In the no fault provinces both parties go to their own insurance and there is no recovery from the other party.

OP, interesting scenario. They might have been better off getting hit by somebody with no insurance and they would then have a $300. My guess is the other party was drunk. Your friend couldnt give a description of the driver? This is potential fraud so the insurance company should take it pretty seriously (More investigation, statements etc)
My friend described to police a male, & skin tone. The ownership name appears to be a woman
Deal Addict
Mar 8, 2007
1449 posts
134 upvotes
Capt. wrote: Not quite. In the no fault provinces both parties go to their own insurance and there is no recovery from the other party.

OP, interesting scenario. They might have been better off getting hit by somebody with no insurance and they would then have a $300. My guess is the other party was drunk. Your friend couldnt give a description of the driver? This is potential fraud so the insurance company should take it pretty seriously (More investigation, statements etc)
Huh? So in all non fault accidents the insurance company of the victim vehicle would eat all the damages to that vehicle?

Doesn't add up.
Buy/Sell/Trade with confidence, 50+ positive feedback.
Deal Addict
Sep 2, 2004
2364 posts
684 upvotes
ctrueman82 wrote: Huh? So in all non fault accidents the insurance company of the victim vehicle would eat all the damages to that vehicle?

Doesn't add up.
Yes that's exactly how it works. Each party goes to their own insurance and that's the end, for vehicle damages at least. Only in no fault provinces of course. Some provinces and many states don't use the no fault system
Deal Addict
Mar 8, 2007
1449 posts
134 upvotes
Capt. wrote: Yes that's exactly how it works. Each party goes to their own insurance and that's the end, for vehicle damages at least. Only in no fault provinces of course. Some provinces and many states don't use the no fault system

https://www.personalinjurylawyertoronto ... ident.html
Your car insurance company then has the option to recover the total payout from the at fault driver, or their insurance company. This is called a " subrogated interest". It is entirely up to your insurance company whether or not they pursue this subrogated interest against the at fault driver.
What is subrogated interest?
Subrogation is a term describing a legal right held by most insurance carriers to legally pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured. This is done in order to recover the amount of the claim paid by the insurance carrier to the insured for the loss.
I only did a few minutes of hunting but i still believe this to be the case.
Buy/Sell/Trade with confidence, 50+ positive feedback.
Deal Addict
Sep 2, 2004
2364 posts
684 upvotes
ctrueman82 wrote:
I only did a few minutes of hunting but i still believe this to be the case.
You found some incorrect info but feel free to believe it if you like. I really don't care what you believe, the only reason I'm replying is for the benefit of the forum and the spreading of wrong information.

There is no subrogated interest for the auto damages in Ontario, except for rare circumstances like the other person didnt have insurance or the vehicle is from outside the province AND the other person's insurance is not on the Ontario no fault signatories list. Those are the only cases where you can go after the at fault driver.

I knew it was a questionable site when they called an auto adjuster as a property adjuster. Property adjusters handle claims for buildings like your house or office, not cars.
Deal Addict
Mar 8, 2007
1449 posts
134 upvotes
Capt. wrote: You found some incorrect info but feel free to believe it if you like. I really don't care what you believe,
Easy there tough guy, i wasn't attacking you. So much for polite discussion.
Buy/Sell/Trade with confidence, 50+ positive feedback.
Sr. Member
Feb 25, 2004
514 posts
206 upvotes
ctrueman82 wrote: Huh? So in all non fault accidents the insurance company of the victim vehicle would eat all the damages to that vehicle?

Doesn't add up.
yes. the only exception would be loss transfer scenarios IE Big vehicle (transport) vs small vehicle (car) then the second party (AF driver) would reimbuse.

all other claims where it's passenger vehicles involved on both sides are absorbed by their own insurer(s)

Top