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

[Disneylover99]

I read the original post, and some of the responses. It got so back and forth nitpicky that I kind of gave up. But I'm on a side - the side of the guy that got rear-ended! If you do get any money, you should give it to him for his deductible, even with your 'no-fault' stupid insurance, because it was definitely your husband's fault.

I believe the OP mentioned that the other driver wouldn't have to pay the deductible since they were not at fault.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I'm thinking some MPI IT staff are going to wonder why the site got a spike of hits from USA servers on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[ronandannette]

I believe the OP mentioned that the other driver wouldn't have to pay the deductible since they were not at fault.

How could anybody be deemed at fault or not in a no-fault system? Logically, everybody would pay their own deductible but that's just a guess.

 

[Disneylover99]

How could anybody be deemed at fault or not in a no-fault system? Logically, everybody would pay their own deductible but that's just a guess.

Our no fault system in Ontario simply means your own insurance company handles the claim. Fault is still determined. Deductibles can be waived if the person is deemed 100% not at fault.

 

[Bob Dolewhip]

I think that aside from all the legal and insurance issues, if the car was a gift then the insurance payout belongs to OP and her bil should give them the money.

What kind of crap wedding present is a car that can’t pass inspection and forces them to skirt the rules just to drive it?

 

[ronandannette]

I think that aside from all the legal and insurance issues, if the car was a gift then the insurance payout belongs to OP and her bil should give them the money.

What kind of crap wedding present is a car that can’t pass inspection and forces them to skirt the rules just to drive it?

Pretty sure nobody forced anybody to do anything, but you're right - they probably would have been happier if the wedding gift had been a brand new vehicle right off the lot.

 

[Sepo]

Why don’t you guys buy a $1000 bottle of wine with it and finish it off together. Toast to your respective healths. Hugs at the end.

 

[jevs]

I think that aside from all the legal and insurance issues, if the car was a gift then the insurance payout belongs to OP and her bil should give them the money.

What kind of crap wedding present is a car that can’t pass inspection and forces them to skirt the rules just to drive it?

Why don’t people give toasters anymore as wedding gifts?

I blame the hipsters.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I think that aside from all the legal and insurance issues, if the car was a gift then the insurance payout belongs to OP and her bil should give them the money.

What kind of crap wedding present is a car that can’t pass inspection and forces them to skirt the rules just to drive it?

Who forced them to skirt the rules?
If anything, I'd say if the brother felt pressured into skirting the rules, because they chose not to do the proper repairs and therefore had to have him remain on the title and insurance, the never truly accepted it as a gift and just used it as a long term loan anyway.


Given that the OP says they requested no gifts and that the brother had given them a BBQ already anyway, I imagine the "wedding gift" was just a one off comment (in one text message apparently!) meant to make offering the continued use of the car feel less like charity to OP's husband.
Along the lines of "we can't keep imposing on you like this. I feel awful. We don't have another car, but we need to be grown ups and figure it out"
"nah, I don't use the car anyway. If you need it, keep it--call it a wedding gift"

 

[DisneyOma]

We live in a province with no fault insurance. Meaning, we do not have to pay the other persons deductable to fix their car,

I believe the OP mentioned that the other driver wouldn't have to pay the deductible since they were not at fault.

The OP stated that they don't have to pay the deductible for the car that the husband hit.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Who forced them to skirt the rules?
If anything, I'd say if the brother felt pressured into skirting the rules, because they chose not to do the proper repairs and therefore had to have him remain on the title and insurance, the never truly accepted it as a gift and just used it as a long term loan anyway.
Given that the OP says the requested no gifts and that the brother had given them a BBQ already anyway, I imagine the "wedding gift" was just a one off comment (in one text message apparently!) meant to make offering the continued use of the car feel less like charity to OP's husband.
Along the lines of "we can't keep imposing on you like this. I feel awful. We don't have another car, but we need to be grown ups and figure it out"
"nah, I don't use the car anyway. If you need it, keep it--call it a wedding gift"

I have to agree with this. It was a "no gifts" wedding, he'd already given them a BBQ. It's more like if my sister saw something in my closet and I said, "Oh, just take it". Among family, I don't make a big deal or keep score or anything, and I could see some saying, "Just take it, Mazeltov!" The OP keeps trying to paint the BIL as a big jerk, and for all we know, he beats his dog nightly. But, I'm just not seeing what he did/is doing that's so terrible in this particular case. OP had three years free use of a crappy car--that really helped her out. Now the crappy car no longer runs. Time to get a replacement. OP probably has other places she'd rather spend her money (don't we all?). It sucks. OP needs to get to a place where she's grateful for the three-year car use, and grateful the accident was minor, and move on with her life. For all we know, BIL might have been generous with the insurance check, but has his own cash flow issues right now.

 

[Disneylover99]

The OP stated that they don't have to pay the deductible for the car that the husband hit.

Yes, but I was under the impression that if the person hit is deemed 100% not at fault, they wouldn't have to pay their own deductible. Maybe @CdnCarrie will chime in on the Manitoba rules about this.

 

[sam_gordon]

nevermind

 

[anniemae]

Why don’t people give toasters anymore as wedding gifts?

I blame the hipsters.

It's the Millennials.

 

[ronandannette]

Why don’t people give toasters anymore as wedding gifts?

I blame the hipsters.

Because everybody knows small appliances are only appropriate at gender-reveal parties nowadays.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The car is registered to bil because it wouldn’t pass a safety inspection to have the title transferred.

Ummmmmmmm. And it was involved in an accident? Should you be admitted that out loud?

 

[ronandannette]

Ummmmmmmm. And it was involved in an accident? Should you be admitted that out loud?

Nothing wrong with that aspect of it, technically. The car was legally registered and insured. There is no requirement for periodic inspections to verify roadworthyness except if the title is transferring and a new registration and insurance application is being made.

 

[mnrose]

Ummmmmmmm. And it was involved in an accident? Should you be admitted that out loud?

Yes. This. My exchange student was recently involved in a minor auto accident. The car she was riding in was rear ended when the car in front of theirs stopped suddenly. The car she was riding in stopped safely without hitting anything, but the car behind theirs was unable to stop and ran into them. She now is dealing with whiplash. The lady driving the offending vehicle jumps out an immediately says "I'm sorry. All my fault. I have bad brakes." Seriously? You KNOW you have bad brakes and you drive your car anyway? How irresponsible is that?

And, want to know the real kicker to all this? Guess whose insurance pays for her medical expenses associated with this accident? Hmmm. Let's see. First guess: the idiot woman who drove with bad brakes? No. Sorry, you're not a winner. Second guess: the car she was riding in? No, once again you are not a winner. You say you HAVE no third guess? Here, let me help you. Under state law (Minnesota), MY auto insurance (my car was parked in my garage at the time of the accident) pays. Go figure that one, huh? So annoying that some idiot woman drives with bad brakes, and my rates get to go up (now, theoretically, they say that CAN'T happen, but how the hell do you prove that?!?!).

 

[mnrose]

Nothing wrong with that aspect of it, technically. The car was legally registered and insured. There is no requirement for periodic inspections to verify roadworthyness except if the title is transferring and a new registration and insurance application is being made.

Yes there is. It's called "fraud." OP wants to say the car is "hers" but she does not want to go through the necessary steps to make it hers.

 

[cabanafrau]

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.

Didn't you say his license would probably go from $40 last year to $100 this year as a result? $60?? We also have No Fault insurance in Michigan. I'd take a $60 increase if I had an accident and do a happy dance. Even losing out on the money for the car, you're coming out thousands of dollars ahead of where I'd be after an accident. I'd still be dancing if it was only costing me $1,060.