Same thing that happens if he kills a cyclist or pedestrian if the cyclist HAS car insurance.
Got a ticket for driving with no insurance...what to expect?
- Thread starter gspotlover
- Start date
What part of your "adequate thinking" failed to comprehend the substance of the op's original request? You know, how he might now best deal with the actual consequences of his bad decision?
He gets it, we get, it... everyone GETS IT :frusty:.... driving without insurance is a really bad thing... now ... since it is morning...
Let me answer the question for you:
The pedestrian or their surviving dependents will sue for negligence and be awarded such things as income replacement, he will not have insurance to cover the claim, so he will declare bankruptcy, and his victim and their family will get pennies on the dollar.
Also, the two of your are flat wrong about what happens when the victim had car insurance. While basic damages will be covered by their policy first they also have the ability to sue for negligence if those damages exceed the benefits they got from their own policy, in which case again he will be liable but she he hasn't insured instead he will declare bankruptcy and they will get pennies on the dollar of what they are owed.
This claim that no fault insurance means an at fault driver's insurance never pays us just wrong. It pays damages above the damages covered by the other party's insurance. In the case of a pedestrian or cyclist that other insurance may not exist.
he goes to jail and possibly gets sued. So now how does that effect anyone other them himself?
Someone else's car insurance company will not volunatarily cover third parties in the event of an accident. As such, the pedestrian or cyclist is primarily covered under their own personal insurance policies.
Read the fine print on the policy. The insurance covers third-party liability. As such, even if the motorist has insurance, the cyclist (or their estate) must take the insurance company and the motorist to court to get covered. Eventually, the third party might win or get a settlement. However, they are taking an insurance company to court, and the process will take a long while.
You want either a good life/disability policy or a good auto policy, even if you don't drive a car. Car insurance is strange in that it is primarily a product designed to cover damage to a car. It then has these additional personal injury aspects added on to it. However those personal injury aspects don't cover everyone that needs to be covered, and are not available separately. What people really need is a really good life and disability policy, however those policies are very expensive, and hard to get also.
The insurance company will cover him. The blood sucking insurance company will be the one potentially out the money trying to sue the OP.
Of course it will be settled in a court. Your insurance is required to defend you in court if you are sued. They are also required to pay the damages if they lose that case on your behalf. While you are right it will be a long process it will still eventually replace income lost and other damages to the third party you harmed, if the court finds you were legitimately at fault.
This was in response to your previous post. You wrote:
"Also, the two of your are flat wrong about what happens when the victim had car insurance. While basic damages will be covered by their policy first they also have the ability to sue for negligence if those damages exceed the benefits they got from their own policy, in which case again he will be liable but she he hasn't insured instead he will declare bankruptcy and they will get pennies on the dollar of what they are owed."
this is from the Ontario insurance act:
Uninsured automobile coverage is the third mandatory insurance coverage in Ontario. Uninsured automobile insurance provides protection to you and your family if injured or killed by an uninsured driver or a hit and run driver. It also covers damage to your vehicle and contents caused by a driver who is been identified but is uninsured
And you think every resident of Ontario has this coverage? You are simply wrong. Children walking home from school, for example, do not have this coverage. Many people do not have this coverage. Even where people do have it, it is probably quite limited and unlikely sufficient to cover the damages. Are you really arguing that everybody should buy this extra insurance to protect themselves from the OP?
Your claim that he put only himself at risk was WRONG. He put lots of people at risk. Then while driving around KNOWING he didn't have insurance he speeds 20km over the limit.
He deserves what he is getting.
Without reading through the thread my question is:
Is it a lapsed policy or did you forget to put the renewal in your ownership billet?
That happened to me once, I got caught speeding. The cop told me that my insurance had expired. I apologized and told him I had the new policy, putting it in the billet slipped my mind. He told me to present it to the station by a certain time and I wouldn't get a fine.
Is it a lapsed policy or did you forget to put the renewal in your ownership billet?
That happened to me once, I got caught speeding. The cop told me that my insurance had expired. I apologized and told him I had the new policy, putting it in the billet slipped my mind. He told me to present it to the station by a certain time and I wouldn't get a fine.
Fuji, I'm going to try to explain this in the most basic way I can.
When you get insurance, you are covering your own ass. That's why they have so many options for you. You can be covered up to this much..ect..ect. You getting insurance has nothing to do with someone else insurance. Usually what happens, is the inurnsce companies fight it out. If the other person has no insurance, YOU are still covered to a certain anount based on YOUR policy. Your insurance company will sue him for what losses they've incuured
You don't get insurance based on the fact someone else is insured
. The inurnsce company is asking you how much you want to spend in order for us to cover you for XYZ. Your insurance company doesn't say "hey! We have this extra option for you. Incase you your involved with someone that doesn't have insurance, we have this EXTRA insurance policy". I'll say it one more time..you buy insurance for YOU. When you get that insurance, you are covered based on YOUR insurance policy, not his.
Simple enough for you?
When you get insurance, you are covering your own ass. That's why they have so many options for you. You can be covered up to this much..ect..ect. You getting insurance has nothing to do with someone else insurance. Usually what happens, is the inurnsce companies fight it out. If the other person has no insurance, YOU are still covered to a certain anount based on YOUR policy. Your insurance company will sue him for what losses they've incuured
You don't get insurance based on the fact someone else is insured
. The inurnsce company is asking you how much you want to spend in order for us to cover you for XYZ. Your insurance company doesn't say "hey! We have this extra option for you. Incase you your involved with someone that doesn't have insurance, we have this EXTRA insurance policy". I'll say it one more time..you buy insurance for YOU. When you get that insurance, you are covered based on YOUR insurance policy, not his.
Simple enough for you?
Last edited:
Your absolutely right! Sometimes people have a hard concept of this with their thick heads.
