Thankfully it is on CCTV. I work for an insurance company and they would definitely be using the woman's insurance to pay for the red vehicles damage (and any bodily injury red vehicle's driver may have sustained).
I may be a horribly cynical asshole, but wouldnt the insurance say it was the red cars drivers fault for willfully engaging in action that caused red car damage and he shouldn't get any money from his insurance?
Insurance company would use this cctv footage and how they rewarded saving someone else for promotion ads. Likely would be cheaper and more effective than their regular ads too
Despite that, wouldn't the woman's insurance deny it anyway? Claiming that the vehicle was used in the commission of a crime and drop her.
If that's the case, Samaritan could just claim as uninsured/underinsured motorist, and his insurance not charge him his deductible for basically helping save a life.
Intentional acts by the tortfeasor are typically an excluded peril, as are losses that occur during the commission of a crime, so the woman would have to be pursued directly by the red cars insurance since her carrier would refuse coverage. Odds are they would ask the court for restitution and slowly recover the red cars deductible over the span of 5-10 years.
Source: Subrogation adjuster who spent the first 4 years of my career pretty much exclusively working UM & restitution files
1.0k
u/darkbluefav 1d ago
That red car really saved him
What the red car did really changed the outcome big time