Whose side would you be on? UPDATE page 17 (?!?)

[Allison]

You took advantage of a loophole that is now coming back to bite you. Lesson learned.

 

[buzzrelly]

I haven’t read all the previous replies, but BIL for sure gets the money. It was titled in his name and thus, it is his car.

 

[allison443]

No, that’s not the way it works. I understand that no fault insurance is hard to get if you’re not used to it. My husbands licence will definitely go up, but the insurance on the car doesn’t.

Now I am curious, what is the cost of the insurance policy based on? It can’t be the same amount for every vehicle? Do they take into account where you live (city/rural), age/model of car, number of drivers, age of drivers? Wondering how it works there.

 

[Hikergirl]

While legally he should get the money, I think since it was gifted to you (and you have been paying for maintenance and the insurance as if it was your car) your BIL should give it to you.
However it doesn't sound like is going to happen.

 

[piccolopat]

Nope because the medical is covered by the universal provincial government medical and the extra is covered by the medical portion of the car insurance. The only time you can sue if the at fault person was uninsured. And it would only be for what wasn't covered by the province's medical plan which probably wouldn't be much if anything.

What if the other person was unable to work because of the accident for a period of time? What if the other person dies? I know how insurance and liability works in the US but it sounds like things are a bit different in Canada.

 

[maxaroni]

I am confused about the insurance issue. NJ is a no fault state but our rates may still increase if in an accident, or have traffic violations. Not saying it will, but it can, as far as I know. Anyone else from NJ and can verify this?

Also, we can have a clause in our insurance to be able to sue, and can pay for different levels o the threshold.

 

[sk!mom]

I think that it speaks to his character that he is willing to potentially damage a relationship with his brother over a $1000 for a car he didn't want anyway.

Possibly but then the attitude of the OP also speaks to her character. She said she'll no longer speak to him if he keeps the money.

No, not ungrateful or defensive. Just trying to get all the details in.

No, the bil did actually say the car was a gift..my husband still has the text message on an old phone.

If you knew the bil, you wouldn’t feel sympathy for him. He’s a bigot and he gladly calls things ‘gay’ for stupid. He’s really not a nice guy.

I’m not going to sue for the money or anything, clearly that would be going too far. For time #4..I decided last night to let it go and just see what happens. I’ll adjust my behaviour accordingly. I posted this thread just to see what others thought which is kinda the point of the boards lol

If I didn’t like the answers, I’d either delete the OP (even though it’s wuoted) or ask the mods to shut it down, or just ignore it.

But you posted here so maybe you haven't truly let it go.

I could be reading this wrong but are you saying I’m mad because he didn’t give us a real wedding present? That’s not the case at all. We actually requested no gifts from anybody. Plus, he bought us a bbq in the summer so it’s not like he owed us anything.

If I read that wrong, I apologize.

I get that you describe him as a jerk but then you mention his generosity. The use of a car for 3 years when you didn't want gifts. The gift of a BBQ. I don't know...he just sounds pretty generous for a jerk.

It isn't sympathy.

He is the legal owner of the car. We don't make bigots give up their things simply because we don't like them.

To say nothing of the fact that you liked him enough when you were using his car.

Yep. You are sounding pretty entitled OP.

 

[kimblebee]

I haven’t read all the previous replies, but BIL for sure gets the money. It was titled in his name and thus, it is his car.

Then you missed the multiple times where I said he gave us the car as a wedding gift. In the eyes of the law, yes, it’s his car because his name is on the insurance. Basic decency says it’s ours because he, you know, said he gave it to us.

 

[kimblebee]

Now I am curious, what is the cost of the insurance policy based on? It can’t be the same amount for every vehicle? Do they take into account where you live (city/rural), age/model of car, number of drivers, age of drivers? Wondering how it works there.

The only thing that matters is type and age of vehicle. And if it’s used for business or pleasure. You can have 46 people driving the car of all different ages..it doesn’t change the cost at all.

What if the other person was unable to work because of the accident for a period of time? What if the other person dies? I know how insurance and liability works in the US but it sounds like things are a bit different in Canada.

This has all been answered already

 

[kimblebee]

Possibly but then the attitude of the OP also speaks to her character. She said she'll no longer speak to him if he keeps the money.



But you posted here so maybe you haven't truly let it go.



I get that you describe him as a jerk but then you mention his generosity. The use of a car for 3 years when you didn't want gifts. The gift of a BBQ. I don't know...he just sounds pretty generous for a jerk.



Yep. You are sounding pretty entitled OP.

Thanks for chiming in

 

[Hikergirl]

I am confused about the insurance issue. NJ is a no fault state but our rates may still increase if in an accident, or have traffic violations. Not saying it will, but it can, as far as I know. Anyone else from NJ and can verify this?

Also, we can have a clause in our insurance to be able to sue, and can pay for different levels o the threshold.

In some States your insurance can go up even if you aren't at fault and the other driver's insurance paid. Crazy.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

You said it required repairs in order to do a title transfer so it could pass inspection. Those repairs were never completed, correct? Would they have exceeded $1,000?

It seems BIL not only gave you the car, but did you a favor keeping it in his name & on his insurance (even if you have been paying to maintain & insure it). So, I think he should keep the settlement.

Actually, I'd love to see the settlement first cover the deductible for the guy who was rear-ended, then BIL keep whatever is left.

 

[Happyinwonerland]

Hmm, I decided to do a little research, and from what I can tell the at-fault person's rate will increase, even with "no-fault" insurance. OP should've notified the insurance company that she and her DH were the regular drivers of the car, even though it was registered to BIL. I'm guessing that your BIL's insurance is about to go up, as a direct result of this accident. So I think he is more than right to keep thr money

Not to sound petty, but its only $1000. You will need much more than that for a proper car, so I don't see the need to fight for it.

 

[AppleDumpling]

Sorry, but a gift with strings attached is not really a gift. You mutually agreed upon the terms 3 years ago and IMO, you took a risk and gave up your right to complain, especially since DH was at fault in the accident. Chalk it up as a lesson learned.

This situation could never have occurred in my state because all vehicles must be inspected annually. You can’t renew your registration without passing inspection, and you can’t get insurance without registration.

 

[kimblebee]

Hmm, I decided to do a little research, and from what I can tell the at-fault person's rate will increase, even with "no-fault" insurance. OP should've notified the insurance company that she and her DH were the regular drivers of the car, even though it was registered to BIL. I'm guessing that your BIL's insurance is about to go up, as a direct result of this accident. So I think he is more than right to keep thr money

Not to sound petty, but its only $1000. You will need much more than that for a proper car, so I don't see the need to fight for it.

Ok, for the people in the back, it doesn’t matter to the insurance company who was driving the car on a daily basis. No, the insurance on the car won’t go up because of the accident. The increase is felt on a persons licence.

*not directed at you specifically* can people please read the thread before commenting. The same 3 comments and questions are being said over and over and over. My answers don't change.

 

[tvguy]

Well, you could have a mess on your hands in the form of strained family relations.
Clearly too many legal differences between here in California and your Province in Canada. It is a little surprising to me that it would not come up in the settlement with the insurance company.

Here, you have 10 days to report a transfer of ownership. And you have to have your own insurance. The people driving a specific car have to be listed by name on the insurance unless they are driving it for less than 30 days.
We don't have safety inspections of cars being sold (or given away). Safety inspections are only if you are trying to register a totaled car that has been fixed and put back on the road.
We have Smog inspections, but gifting of a car between family members are exempt from Smog checks.

I would be concerned about the safety of a rusted car, not about whether the cost of repairing rust exceeded the value of the car. The rust repairs would get you many more miles and years of service, and there is value in that well beyond the resale value of the car. I have no idea how many times my Uncle in Saskatoon replaced the sheet metal on his 1977 Plymouth Grand Fury station wagon before he passed away in 2014. But he always said the repairs were at least $20,000 less than a new car, and none of the new cars had the 440 V-8 he wanted to pull his trailer with. Resale value of the car was never a consideration.

 

[sam_gordon]

We couldn’t transfer the title because like I said, it would not have passed a required safety check so it’s a way around the system. It’s using a loophole but it’s very common.

Yes, we skirted the law by not registering the car in our name. Not saying it’s right, it’s just what is done here.

It’s not like we invented the loophole. People have been doing it for as long as I can remember. Not that that makes it right, just saying what it is.

The problem with utilizing loopholes is they can come back and bite you. This is one of those cases. It doesn't matter who else has done it or how long it's been done for. You skirted the law and now you want a benefit.

If it was ‘his car’ he should have been paying for all the repairs, no?

Should he have paid for the gas too?

I really don’t want this to get ugly and separate family.

But, I won’t talk to him anymore.

Those two sentences don't go together.

I worked in the Canadian insurance industry for 17 years—our rules are the same as yours

Are you saying the OP doesn't have a clear understanding on how auto insurance works in Canada?

No, the insurance on the car won’t go up because of the accident. The increase is felt on a persons licence.

So if two people own the same make/model/year of a vehicle, one of them with three at fault accidents and a speeding ticket in the last five years, and the other with nothing, the insurance cost would be the same? That makes no financial sense.

 

[kimblebee]

The problem with utilizing loopholes is they can come back and bite you. This is one of those cases. It doesn't matter who else has done it or how long it's been done for. You skirted the law and now you want a benefit.


Should he have paid for the gas too?




Those two sentences don't go together.


Are you saying the OP doesn't have a clear understanding on how auto insurance works in Canada?


So if two people own the same make/model/year of a vehicle, one of them with three at fault accidents and a speeding ticket in the last five years, and the other with nothing, the insurance cost would be the same? That makes no financial sense.

No, he shouldn’t have paid for gas. I agree we should have paid for repairs; we never once asked him to pay for anything. Granted, we were under the assumption that the car was ours. Not really an assumption though as it was clearly stated.

The sentences do go together. My husband can have the same relationship with his brother that he’s always had. I’ll just stop being civil to him in so much as I just won’t be around him. He doesn’t come over often, but when he does, I’ll just excuse myself.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. If one person had five accidents and the other had none, their insurance for the same make and model and year would be the same. The clean driver would pay $45-$50 for their licence for the year and the bad driver would probably pay a couple hundred dollars. I don’t know how I can say it any different.

 

[marlynnp]

The BIL gets the money. You wanted to keep driving a car that wouldn't pass the safety requirements needed in order to transfer title, too bad so sad.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

 

[Disneylover99]

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. If one person had five accidents and the other had none, their insurance for the same make and model and year would be the same. The clean driver would pay $45-$50 for their licence for the year and the bad driver would probably pay a couple hundred dollars. I don’t know how I can say it any different.

So are there different insurance companies in Manitoba? Or just one big blanket coverage for everyone? It doesn't sound like there would be any need to shop around for the best insurance rates. I'm just trying to understand. It sounds very intriguing and not at all with what many of us are used to.