Drunk driver hit my car

AndyMc.....

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Hmm this is a debate of what is moral and what is just bad luck.


In theory had the offender not got in his car and then crashed into the OP non of this would have come about, If at fault for the crash then thirdparty should be liable to the costs of such mistake. insurable losses are the car, uninsurable losses like stuff that is owned (outright) by the OP like a purse and such that the OP can list as uninsurable loss on a claim form. gap insurance is there specifically to ensure that your not out of pocket in this exact type of event. Im going to go with sorry but no I don't there is going to any liability to the outstanding finance.


Although Now there is no vested interest in the vehicle now its sat in a salvage yard, they may be open to discussion about paying it off.

They will be and that will be the pre accident value of the car.

AndyMc.....

MEM62 wrote: »

The underwriter will pay out the market value of the car. (Often nearer the trade-in figure than the retail one) That is all they are obliged to do.

They do not have liability for the fact that the OP financed the car in such a manner that it had negative equity. That's the OP's problem.

I found that it's nearer to top book price.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

AndyMc..... wrote: »

They will be and that will be the pre accident value of the car.

And that's what I said in the very next sentence. See!


If at fault for the crash then thirdparty should be liable to the costs of such mistake. insurable losses are the car,

unholyangel

Its not because of the interest rate you can't claim it, its because they're only liable for losses incurred by their breach (of duty of care under tort).

The finance agreement would have needed to be paid even if the accident never happened and therefore, its not a loss caused by the breach unfortunately.

I have a strong dislike of people who drive under the influence. No different to firing a loaded gun as you spin in circles, not hitting and potentially killing someone is down to luck. Courts are far too lenient on them imo, one of them ultimately cost my friend his life - the guy had 3 previous convictions, one just 2 months before....and yet still had his licence!

All these modern additions to cars - collision detection, parking assist, cameras, bluetooth, keyless entry etc.....yet no ones adding a built in breathalyser where the car won't start unless you pass it?

Aretnap

DoaM wrote: »

Could the OP theoretically sue the other party for the (GAP) loss caused by their negligence?

No, because there isn't a loss. Before the accident the OP had a car that was worth (say) £10,000 and a debt that needed paying off. So the other driver's insurance pays him £10,000, and he still has a debt that needs paying off. Provided the insurer does pay him fair market value for his six-month old (or whatever) car then he has suffered no financial loss.

Having to pay off the debt early can certainly be an inconvenience, but it's not actually a loss (from some angles it might even be seen as a plus if it saves you interest payments). If the insurer paid off some or all of his debt on top of the value of the car he'd actually be better off than he was before the accident.

Of course depreciation means that the value of the car will be less than he originally paid for it, and possibly less than the outstanding finance - but depreciation isn't a loss caused by the third party's negligence either - it's one that the car's owner had already suffered as part and parcel of the joy of owning a new car.

Looked at from the other angle: if you carelessly damage someone else's property, you expect to pay for it - that's right and proper. But would you expect to pay a different amount depending on whether they bought it with cash, with a finance deal or with a credit card? And if they bought it it with a credit card would you expect to pay a different amount depending on whether they've been making the minimum repayment each month, or paying it off more quickly? Of course not - but the argument that the third party should be liable for the outstanding finance boils down to the much the same thing.