:( Not even one week of owning the car!

Jordo!

It probably varies somewhat from state to state. For most comprehensive policies, other than like a windshield, I think you always get socked with the deductible unless you pay a higher premium.

Darkphantom, unless a cop was on the scene to issue a reckless driving ticket or something to the other driver, even if you got a tag number it's your word against his. Traffic cams might be admissible... Also, court fees and lost time are as likely as not to make the deductible savings negligible. It's worth looking into, but probably not worth pursuing to conclusion.

As to avoiding an accident with another driver -- it sucks, but you did the right thing. Every other car involved means more risk to other lives -- including your own and anyone else on the road around you.

__________________
Enjoy it. Destroy it.

JARblue

I understand that because there was no contact with the other vehicle, it was not possible to run it under uninsured motorist. But it was still filed as a no-fault claim with a lower deductible. I'm not sure if the states have specific rules regarding uninsured motorist coverage or whether the insurance companies write whatever different policies they feel like offering. I know to add uninsured motorist coverage to my policy, it costs me an extra $5 per month and there's no deductible associated with it.

You're probably right on the dash cam thing. Court costs and such just won't make it worth the time. In addition to the chances of it not being admitted as evidence.

I once encountered a lady with no license or insurance and did not speak English. She plowed into me at 35 mph as I was turning into a parking lot. A cop witnessed the whole thing, and she still insisted that I cut her off suddenly and slammed on my brakes even though I had been in front of her for well over a mile at this point. While my uninsured motorist coverage would have covered it regardless (since she rear ended me without insurance), a dash cam would have set the record straight on whether I cut her off or not - assuming front and rear cameras, of course.

__________________

nis350

Uninsured coverage is very simple. There MUST be a driver who has no insurance or his/her coverage is less than the liability (primarily for bodily injuries and may also include properties) of the accident. Furthermore, it must be proven that he/she is at fault. There is normally a deductible for UMI, but some insurance companies offer an option to waive the deductible for a few bucks.

As far as filing no-fault claim, the only thing that counts is the result of the investigation. If the driver is proven to be at least 50% at fault, the premium is going up.

Unfortunately for the OP, the other driver is gone and there is no witness or contact from the other car. I am sure that he is at least 50% at fault which translates to higher premium.

JARblue

I double-checked, and the $5 per month I pay for is the extra charge for no deductible. I now remember that decision - I decided it was worth it in Texas.

I'm not sure I understand why you would attribute fault in a no-fault claim?

__________________

nis350

Because it is irrelevant. You can file 'xyz' type of claims. The only thing that matters is the result of the investigation.

Filing a no-fault claim has no effect on the outcome of the investigation. The claimant has to pay full deductible plus premiums if found at fault.

JARblue

If that's the case, then he was NOT found at fault. Because he did not have to pay his full deductible.

__________________

nis350

I was just trying to explain to you that it doesn't matter the types of claim being filed in general.

I don't have any idea what happened to OP's case as it is still open per his latest posts. Perhaps you have more current info.