I don't understand. Both the attorney that represented me as well as the clerk at small claims court told me that what would happen is that the defendant will inform his insurance company that the case has gone to small claims and that the insurance company will represent him. The insurance company is in place to cover damages in which the insured is at fault for--and they decided not to pay for the bills. This is how it was explained to me. In fact before I even retained the attorney and right after I was verbally told that the insurance company would not pay for the medical bills, the adjuster told me I could take "them" to small claims court if I so choose. So, again...I'm not understanding the misinformation. I am under the impression that I am taking the insurance company to small claims court but had to serve the driver the court action.
My bills were 1900.00. Certainly not an earth shattering accident--but I was hit broadside at a standstill, knocking me around and causing neck pain and headaches that did not exist before the accident.
May I ask why liability has not been established by the insurance company paying for the damage that their insured caused to my car? He was deemed 100% at fault.
$1900 in medical bills for a minor accident that only had $1500 in property damage? I don't see that happening.
The clerk in the small claims court is incorrect. Attorneys are not allowed to represent anyone but themselves in small claims court, until an appeal.
I was told that the insurance company has a fiduciary responsibility to represent their insured in the event of a court case. Again, I was also told by the insurance company that I had the option to take THEM--the insurance company-- to small claims court. In fact I have a letter also stating this.
For the record, I was asking about what to expect in court--not asking your opinion as to whether my medical bills are valid or not. It appears you really don't want to give any helpful information as much as you want to make snarky comments. Fun stuff on a Saturday night, eh?
With all YOUR snark, maybe you should read the CA Civil Code of Procedure and its rules on small claims court...
He he...well, upon reading a few of your posts to other members I can see that this is a hobby of yours--antagonizing people instead of trying to give credible answers. You seem unable to see the situation at hand and instead glom onto something that has nothing to do with the question I asked. I didn't ask if you believe I have credible medical bills--but that seems to be the issue you want to take up.
Obviously I need to do some serious research on this situation, which does NOT include being patronized by an armchair legal wanna be who gets their kicks by sitting on a message board and stirring the pot.
LOL... you may not know this, but no one here (including myself) gets up in arms because someone doesn't hear what they want to hear and resorts to calling names. We're used to the febile minded having temper tantrums. You can go ahead and have yours.
Good luck with those "medical" bills... next time go see a real doctor if you have legitimate medical issues. The insurance companies tend to respond to those.
you may not realize it but court clerk is an actual court clerk in California. She knows how their system works quite well. You would do well to listen to a person that deals with the actual system on a daily basis.
yes, they do but that does not mean they can ignore court rules and jump on into the game. In California, you cannot have an attorney representing you in small claims court. That is why I said to not be surprised when you get a copy of a motion to move this to a higher court.=Gingerlee;463593]I was told that the insurance company has a fiduciary responsibility to represent their insured in the event of a court case.
the other guys insurance company has no horse in this race. It's between you and the other guy. If the judge rules in your favor and orders the other guy liable for your medical bills, his insurance company will either cut a check or hire a lawyer to appeal. Then you get to start over.
maybe they tired of arguing and simply challenged you to take them to court. They obviously know they have no duty to you nor any liability in this situation. Maybe it was a red herring.Again, I was also told by the insurance company that I had the option to take THEM--the insurance company-- to small claims court. In fact I have a letter also stating this.
from what you posted, the bills seem legit but insurance companies generally aren't going to go to court over $2k if their client is at fault.For the record, I was asking about what to expect in court--not asking your opinion as to whether my medical bills are valid or not.
because payment for such or even negotiations do not place liability. Often times an insurance company will pay a small bill, even when their client might have been not at fault. If it is cheaper to pay and get releases, they might just make a payout. They do what is generally the cheapest for them. To them, it's all about money. They don't really care who was at fault.May I ask why liability has not been established by the insurance company paying for the damage that their insured caused to my car?
by whom? Until a court determines fault, nobody is at fault, in the legal sense. The cop may have listed what he believes to be true but until a court says "yep, we agree with that", it doesn't mean anything concerning liability.He was deemed 100% at fault.
what to expect in court: you, the other guy, a judge, a court recorder, maybe some other people setting around. You present your case; The other guy presents his; judge rules and enters an order as s/he sees fit.
Thank you for your input, I appreciate your to the point and uncondescending style. I already knew that an attorney cannot represent either party in small claims court--but I was led to believe that a representative from the insurance company will probably show up to defend themselves, the insurance company.
It's almost scary what my attorney told me! She stated that the insured would get served, he would call his insurance company, the insurance company would send a representative to answer in the case--like a co-defendant for the insured. And then the clerk at the small claims court agreed that that is how it goes. SO, I truly do have some research to do on this--as I have been given varied information.
So...the insurance company is no longer involved in this case? It is truly just between myself and the guy who hit me? That is not at all what I was led to believe.
Thanks again..
Also you mentioned that the insurance co. has no horse in the race. But then said that they would cut the check if the judge rules in my favor? Wouldn't it make sense for them to show up in court themselves--especially since they seem to believe that I have no recourse. And do I have any merit in stating to the judge how the adjuster advised me to get medical attention and then told me she did not believe I was injured after it was completed, with no more or less information than she had before I sought help? I know that it's probably best to say as little as possible...
Also--do you know of any chance of them trying to settle before it goes to court?
I'm beginning to suspect that the fundamental problem here is with your listening skills - that you misunderstood what the insurance adjuster told you, what the court told you, what the lawyer you consulted told you and, based upon your latest round of questions, what you've been told here.
The insurance company has a duty to its client. If you sue their client it may advise the client about how to handle a small claims case, or may appear and move for the case to be moved to a regular trial court, but they won't represent the client in small claims court because (a) lawyers aren't allowed and (b) non-lawyers aren't allowed to practice law. If the defendant loses in small claims court the insurance company may cut its losses or it may appeal, in which case you start over.
If you say you're injured, why shouldn't the adjuster tell you to get medical attention? You weren't speaking to dial-a-nurse. Telling a person who says "I'm injured" to see a doctor does not establish liability.
From what you've told us, you've burned any bridge that may have existed with the adjuster, so I don't expect you'll be getting any settlement offers. You're free to call back and try to negotiate.
Your claim that you did not seek care from a medical doctor because you were afraid you might be sent to physical therapy isn't convincing. If you were injured, that would be what they call "a good thing". Chiropractors have a poor reputation with insurance companies, and somebody who seeks only chiropractic care without seeking either emergency care or following up with a doctor is going to be viewed with suspicion.