You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why can't these idiots do all their cleaning and stuff on a simple stretch on a divided highway. It works phenomenally well in those conditions
I'm curious to see if the insurance company will actually go ahead with the lawsuit, and on what grounds.
....Like if autopilot went suicidal and put the throttle on all the way into another car. .
Question... Does the Autopilot shut off if the sensors detect that no one is sitting in the driver's seat? I know there was an issue with people turning around when backing up and the car putting itself into park at low speeds. I also know that Tesla was the subject of criticism when a certain unnamed YouTube poster put up video of himself getting into the back seat while on Autopilot and the seat sensor allowing it. If Tesla corrected that, could it be that when the driver in the Texas crash leaned over to get something out of the glove box, the seat sensors thought there was no one in the seat and shut down the Autopilot?
We don't know exactly what happened. I have the police report and spoke with the driver, but Tesla has not released a statement about this particular crash yet. I'm sure they have the logs and are looking into it.We don't really know that that is what happened. We know that this is what the driver thinks happened; but it is more likely that the driver accidentally disengaged AP while leaning to reach the glovebox. Why not wait to get the actual assessment from analysis of the car logs vs manufacturing a story based on a single individual's recollection? Oh wait, I know! Because it makes it really hard to use conjecture and speculation in order to sensationalize a headline and story when you have mundane facts about what really happened...
I agree, but honestly, does an insurance company ever refuse to cover a damage because of some type of negligence or carelessness? If that was the case, the damages of most accidents would probably fall on an individual.
Really? So if Chubb gives me a replacement policy on a 1978 Toyota and it's totaled, they can go after the tortfeasor for a new Toyota whereas an insurer who doesn't offer replacement value can only go after the tortfeasor for actual cash value? That's news to me. I thought we had established principles of common-law that govern our law and the issue of insurance has no relevance in determining the quantum of damages.
It's amazing what you learn on the internet!
(By the way, it's called "subrogation" -- and as an insured who has been paid out on a property damage claim you have no choice as to whether to sue or not -- after paying a claim an insurer can sue in your name and you have no right to select counsel or determine the course of the litigation but you do have a duty to cooperate. In a motor vehicle accident, there is property damage and sometimes bodily injury. The article never mentions if the driver was injured other than a bloody nose -- and that's very important since that's the only lawsuit for which he has the deciding vote as to whether to sue, assuming he was paid out on the property damage claim by his insurer.)
We don't really know that that is what happened. We know that this is what the driver thinks happened; but it is more likely that the driver accidentally disengaged AP while leaning to reach the glovebox. Why not wait to get the actual assessment from analysis of the car logs vs manufacturing a story based on a single individual's recollection? Oh wait, I know! Because it makes it really hard to use conjecture and speculation in order to sensationalize a headline and story when you have mundane facts about what really happened...
We don't know exactly what happened. I have the police report and spoke with the driver, but Tesla has not released a statement about this particular crash yet. I'm sure they have the logs and are looking into it.
Ignore him, he also started commenting about SpC's before even using one. I guess it's the cool internet thing to do now.Joeski1: have you used AP for any reasonable length of time ? If not I would suggest be on the sidelines and listen to folks who have.
he stated amount coverage is only for your vehicle payable under the collision coverage. It has nothing to do with any other party that hits you. So if you are at-fault and total out your own vehicle, yes, you'll be paid the agreed amount. However, if another party hits you and totals out your vehicle, you are only entitled to the actual cash value of the vehicle.
hearsay evidence? the operator stated that he wasn't paying attention, hardly hearsay.
I guess sarcasm doesn't come across well in print. I was responding to someone who said that Chubb was more likely to subrogate because they provided a replacement policy of insurance which was clearly wrong.
when the operator of the vehicle in question makes a statement to investigating authorities that he was not paying attention, that is not hearsay. if you are an attorney I'd petition the school that gave you a law degree for a refund.But I better not be sarcastic and just say: "hardly hearsay"? Wrong! It's not hardly hearsay, it's compete 100% hearsay.
Ahh okay, yeah I didn't pick up on your sarcasm!
However, it might have a tiny bit to do with it. If they didn't write a stated amount policy, they would only be on the hook for the ACV of the Tesla. Which might be $70k vs $120k. I will admit though, that probably wasn't a big factor in their decision, should they decide to do so.
You must be an attorney, using words like tortfeasor.
when the operator of the vehicle in question makes a statement to investigating authorities that he was not paying attention, that is not hearsay. if you are an attorney I'd petition the school that gave you a law degree for a refund.
Ahh okay, yeah I didn't pick up on your sarcasm!
However, it might have a tiny bit to do with it. If they didn't write a stated amount policy, they would only be on the hook for the ACV of the Tesla. Which might be $70k vs $120k. I will admit though, that probably wasn't a big factor in their decision, should they decide to do so.
You must be an attorney, using words like tortfeasor.
To begin with the notion that damages for the reinstatement of property destroyed by negligence should automatically be reduced, either by pre-loss depreciation or post-reinstatement betterment, was discarded as long ago as 1844 in The Gazelle (1844) 2 W. Rob. (Adm) 279, 166 E.R. 759. That was an action for negligence involving damage to a ship. Dr. Lushington rejected the argument that there must be an adjustment to the damages required for full reinstatement so as to account for the fact that the owners would thereby get "new for old". At p. 760 of the English Report he noted that:
... The right against the wrongdoer is for a restitutio in integrum, and this restitution he is bound to make without calling upon the party injured to assist him in any way whatsoever. If the settlement of the indemnification be attended with any difficulty (and in those cases difficulties must and will frequently occur), the party in fault must bear the inconvenience. He has no right to fix this inconvenience upon the injured party; and if that party derives incidentally a greater benefit than mere indemnification, it arises only from the impossibility of otherwise effecting such indemnification without exposing him to some loss or burden which the law will not place upon him.
The same approach was taken by the Court of Appeal 125 years later in the Harbutt's "Plasticine" Ltd. case. There the plaintiff's factory was completely destroyed by fire as a consequence of the defendant's negligence. The trial judge awarded as damages the full cost of reinstatement. On the issue of betterment the majority (Lord Denning, M.R. and Widgery, L.J.) held that where the injured party had no option but to replace the destroyed property, and had acted reasonably in doing so, the wrongdoer was not entitled to any deduction on account of the fact that the successful plaintiff got new for old. At p. 473 of the report, Lord Justice Widgery expressed his view in terms very similar to those of Dr. Lushington in The Gazelle:
... It was clear in the present case that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to rebuild their factory, because there was no other way in which they could carry on their business and retain their labour force. The plaintiffs rebuilt their factory to a substantially different design, and if this had involved expenditure beyond the cost of replacing the old, the difference might not have been recoverable, but there is no suggestion of this here. Nor do I accept that the plaintiffs must give credit under the heading of "betterment" for the fact that their new factory is modern in design and materials. To do so would be the equivalent of forcing the plaintiffs to invest their money in the modernising of their plant which might be highly inconvenient for them. Accordingly I agree with the sum allowed by the trial judge as the cost of replacement.
In my view the same principles as those expressed by Dr. Lushington and Lord Justice Widgery apply equally when assessing damages for the negligent loss of or damages to a private dwelling house which is occupied by the owners as their permanent home.
The same conclusion was reached by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Evans et al v. Balog [1976] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 36. There the plaintiffs' 75 year old home, which was situated on property zoned for high-rise development, had been badly damaged by the negligence of the defendants. On appeal it was argued by the defendants that because of the development potential of the plaintiffs' land, their house had no value. In upholding an award of damages for the full cost of reinstatement, Samuels, J.A. applied a passage from McGregor on Damages, 13th ed., p. 713:
The difficulty in deciding between diminution in value and cost of reinstatement arises from the fact that the plaintiff may want his property in the same state as before the commission of the tort but the amount required to effect this may be substantially greater than the amount by which the value of the property has been diminished. The test which appears to be the appropriate one is the reasonableness of the plaintiff's desire to reinstate the property; this will be judged in part by the advantages to him of reinstatement in relation to the extra cost to the defendant in having to pay damages for reinstatement rather than damages calculated by the diminution in value of the land.