I remember standing in a Honda dealership, talking on the phone to the person in charge of my insurance claim. She was telling me that my deductible would not be taken off my insurance immediately, because they still had not been in touch with the guy who ran into my car. 鈥淗e ran a stop sign!鈥� I protested, but at that precise moment, it didn鈥檛 matter. I would get it back as soon as he responded to their calls, but that might take some time.
That was a case when they knew who they were looking for. The police had his name, address, phone number and place of work. I would have had the deductible back eventually 鈥� and, in fact, I got it later that day 鈥� but even with all of that information it was still not immediate. The problem is when you have a second party who isn鈥檛 willing to take responsibility.
That鈥檚 something a friend of mine encountered last week, when his car was hit in a hit and run. In his case, he was worrying about whether or not he would have to cover his deductible after the collision, even though he wasn鈥檛 at fault, because they had difficulty actually finding the person who hit him. After all, someone who doesn鈥檛 stick around after an accident doesn鈥檛 want to be found.
The problem with the system we have now is that it鈥檚 reliant on everyone involved being honest. In my collision, we had two parties who were honest about what happened, and while it took time to get the insurance issues sorted at least there was very little question that those issues would be settled eventually. For my friend, it wasn鈥檛 nearly as clear cut, and he had to worry not only about his own situation, but finding the other party to hold them responsible.
In this way, victims of a hit and run are often hit twice, once by the offending driver and once by insurance, as they have to deal with the problem of having to pay from their own pocket because there鈥檚 nobody to collect from. From the insurance company鈥檚 perspective, you have to collect from someone, but in this case, you鈥檙e essentially charging someone for being the victim of a crime.
To me, it feels a bit ridiculous that someone is on the hook because of who hit them. I get hit by someone honest, I don鈥檛 have to worry, but when someone gets hit by someone dishonest, they鈥檙e going to pay. It鈥檚 not as though someone can judge the character of someone who could potentially hit them, it creates a weird double standard where people are punished for the dishonesty of others.
I propose, then, that victims of a hit-and-run should not have to pay their deductible. The insurance industry won鈥檛 be a fan of that idea, but for their sake I propose substantially increasing the amount charged for a minimum fine for people who flee the scene of an accident to offset the cost, perhaps automatically add $1,000 in restitution to the fine, with larger amounts possible depending on the damage. This seems like a lot, but given that this fine can be avoided by either staying at the scene of an accident or ensuring you can be contacted by police, it鈥檚 not like it鈥檚 a fine you can鈥檛 easily avoid.
It鈥檚 an idea, because it seems ridiculous to me that someone gets charged extra because they鈥檙e hit by a criminal.
They鈥檙e hit twice, once in the initial collision, once when they have to pay for it.
