tom911

Been 9 days since your last post. Any developments on the amount of damages or how they're going to be covered?

cestmoi123

OK, if you say so. Not clear how you're going to get everything done on both cars for <$6k when the hood, bumper cover, and headlight alone for the Chevy will be over $3k for the parts alone, and that's not even including the radiator damage, parking sensors, labor, and whatever the costs on the Nissan are.

garykung

Based on the photos, the hoods of both cars were intact with minor scratches. It is unlikely that the hoods will need to be replaced. A touch up on the hood to hide the paint may be needed. Bumper covers will definitely need to be replaced. Not sure about the styrofoam behind them. The lights definitely are yes as well. Also the radiator. However, the sensors at the front seem to be intact. There is no need for replacement.

California law allows the use of non-OEM parts in repair. So if non-OEM parts are available, the price will be significantly cheaper.

Last but not the least - the labor costs are restricted if it is paid by car rental company or insurance.

Hence, the total repair cost will be less than $10K.

TravelLawyer

Did the other car have insurance? CA is a pay to play state. The other driver can't sue for special damages (pain and suffering) unless they have insurance. But if they did have insurance and are suing - that can take years. I believe the statute of limitations in CA is 3 years. Payment for property damage to both cars is the least of OP's worries.

tom911

Glad you cleared that up.

cestmoi123

I bow to your superior wisdom. I will note, however, that the comment I highlighted above is the sort of thing that a lawyer experienced in CA traffic law might point out, which the OP might not know on his own. Just saying.

garykung

You don't have to bow to my wisdom. But again - you are wrong.

The comment highlighted is in fact a required disclosure in California when an auto claim has been filed. Once a claim has been filed, you will get the disclosure explaining this. Here are more detail:

Auto Body Repairs and Replacement Parts

To make things simple - California's legal perspective is unless it is not available, you can use whatever parts you can find to restore the car. And this includes used parts when necessary.

cestmoi123

Once a claim has been filed...with whom? He doesn't have auto insurance, remember? So, if he doesn't have a lawyer, who's going to push back when the Chevy owner wants to get his vehicle repaired with OEM parts? Not the Chevy owner's insurer, since they're going to collect from the OP. Not the OP, since he probably doesn't know he has the right to require non-OEM parts be used.

garykung

I simply mentioned that as a required disclosure to a California consumer. It does not mean it applies in this case.

But if the 3rd driver/owner filed a claim with his/her own insurer, then the 3rd driver/owner will get this disclosure.

Just because OP has no insurance does not mean any related law do not apply.

The court and/or the insurer, depending how the owner proceeds.

Also - the owner is free to bring the car back to the dealership repaired with OEM parts. The reality is the owner has to cough up the difference.

There is a reason why an insurance adjuster has to examine the car before it can be repaired.

But in this case, the claim is adjusted based on insurance rate, i.e. using non-OEM parts.

cestmoi123

Noted.

Yes, he would, but his insurer wouldn't be pushing to use non-OEM parts, since it's not coming out of their pocket.

Exactly my point. The law might apply, but without a lawyer or an insurance company, the OP wouldn't know the law existed in the first place.

The bottom line is that the law is set up to deal with the (legally mandated) situation where both parties have insurance companies. The OP's insurance would be pushing to keep the costs of repairing the Chevy low, since it's coming out of there pocket. If the OP doesn't have a lawyer, nor any liability insurance, there's nobody with any expertise in the area advocating for him.

garykung

Not true.

Assuming the Chevy owner did have comprehensive coverage, then his/her insurer will be handling the claims/damages. How that insurer chooses to do with OP is entirely up to the insurer, not the owner.

Still, the insurer has to adhere the fair claim regulations regarding non-OEM parts.

(Note - there is nothing preventing the owner from opting out non-OEM parts. But simply the fact that the insurer is obligated to repair the car with non-OEM parts unless one is not available.)

In the unlikely event that the Chevy's insurer pay no benefit because of no comprehensive coverage, still the Chevy's owner has to justify the non-use of non-OEM parts if one is available.

That's why an appraisal is so important in auto claim.

It is unknown where OP is from, but using non-OEM parts in auto repair has been a norm in the industry worldwide.

California simply makes this further to make this as law. I am assure that many U.S. states will have similar practice.

This is where I take a strong defense.

As always, OP has the right to counsel. The realistic issue is when your lawyer was able to advocate for you in lowering the compensation, the similar amount of money will go to the lawyer. You save some and then you lose some.

FWIW - it could be a zero sum game.

cestmoi123

I think you've got the issue reversed here. The law places a restriction on insurance companies, saying that "non-OEM (aftermarket) replacement parts are only permitted if the insurer can guarantee that the parts are equal in kind, quality, safety, fit and performance" to OEM parts. So, it's a limitation on the insurer's ability to demand that (cheaper) non-OEM parts are used.

Again, if the OP has no lawyer and no insurance company, and the Chevy owner says "I want only OEM parts," the Chevy owner's insurer is going to say "fine by us," since they're just going to be passing the bill on to the OP. The Chevy owner's insurer has no reason to antagonize their customer to save the OP money.

garykung

Actually - there is: mitigation.

For the sake of the argument, assuming that the Chevy is not liable at all. Just because the owner has repaired the car with OEM parts does not mean the entire expenses can pass through to OP.

The reason - the owner must demonstrate why the repair is necessary. This is why with or without insurance, an adjuster (either insurance adjuster or public adjuster) will need to appraise the car to assess the damage.

Again - adjustment is an insurance aspect. So? Non-OEM parts again.

s0ssos

I don't know if I would be so harsh. The US is supposed a "civilized" country yet doesn't make rental car insurance mandatory? Can you tell me which other country doesn't?
How is it logical to be allowed to rent a car when you have the potential to damage someone else's vehicle?
You aren't allowed to buy a car without insurance (you can do the deposit of $50k or something though, but that is basically self-insuring), but you can rent one without? Where did that loophole come in?

garykung

Because it is not a necessity.

The U.S. has one of the highest number of vehicles per capita in the world, although not ranked #1 . So customarily a resident will have some kind of automotive insurance coverage, that may be able to cover the car rental.