I just had to add a side-note...

I am an accident magnet. I have had quite a few NOT-at-fault accidents in the 10 years I have been driving. So, I always keep a good amount of insurance.

A few years ago, I was advised to put uninsured motorist coverage on my policy.

Thank goodness I did.

I was hit head-on by a drunk and high driver without insurance. He caused $15,000 in damages by totaling my vehicle. Then, he caused me $20,000-and still growing all of the time- in medical bills that he couldn't and wouldn't pay. (This was also his 3rd dui and 11th driving on a revoked license, but I digress.)

My insurance company actually hired attorneys to DEFEND the guy who hit me without insurance. :rolleyes:

I got a good lawyer who helped me get enough money to pay my medical bills and get a new vehicle. (Unfortunately, I didn't get enough to pay for the medical bills that I will have for the rest of my life as a result of the accident. But, something is better than nothing.)

My point is: Uninsured motorist coverage is a good thing. We will always have it from now on. And, we learned the value of med-pay. (It helps pay medical expenses quickly instead of having to pay for things yourself and then hoping to get reimbursed a year or two down-the-road.)

As far as I am aware, a police report is not admissible in evidence in court (so the other person can't try to use it against you). The officer who wrote the report can testify as a witness to what he or she actually observed at the scene... and apparently the officer's supervisor would be able to offer some testimony as well. The bottom line, though, is a police report is nothing more or less than the officer's "opinion" of what happened and is not the end-all, be-all of anything.

Sending a letter to the other party and her dad is a good idea because it's additional documentation that you can use to your advantage later if you have to sue. I would suggest that you keep a copy of the letter for your own records, and send both letters (to the other driver and her dad) via certified mail with return receipt requested as proof of delivery.

Good luck!

WTF??! This doesn't make any sense! Your insurance company has a contractual obligation to defend YOU, not the other driver. I've seen a few cases where the company I work for has hired attorneys to sue the other party on our insured's behalf (usually when the other party has no insurance or not enough insurance), but I've never heard of an insurance company hiring attorneys to defend the other party instead of their own insured.

The only cases I can think of where an insurance company would ever side against their own insured would be: 1) if the statements and/or evidence make it clear their insured is at fault for the collision [in this case your company would just simply find you at fault and pay the other party's claim - there would be no need to hire an attorney to defend the other party], or 2) if the company believes their insured is attempting to make a fraudulent claim against their own policy [in this case, the file would be handled by a special investigation unit - but here if an attorney is hired, it would be to defend your insurance company against you, not to defend the other party].

Tippiechick: Are you entirely sure your insurance company did this? Since it does not seem to make any sense, the possibility exists that you may have simply been mistaken, but if you're correct, then you may have a cause of action against your own insurance company for bad faith.

The mechanical was fixed today. I had to pay $621.40 for a new spindle, bearings, pads, calipers and rotor.

The cop hasnt called me back yet. This is such a pain in the ass.

This is gonna cost her......

Yep. I am very sure. The depositions they took of the drunk driver clearly stated they were working on behalf of USAA and Mr. Wallace.

My lawyer explained it to me that they had to work on behalf of him since we were suing them. They said it was common practice for a company to defend the person who was the uninsured.

I was told that they were trying to defend him in hopes of not having to pay out the $100,000 my policy covered. They were hoping that my injuries (that hurt me every day of my life and have left me partially disabled in my knee) were fake. I was told that sometimes by defending the person who caused the accident, they can "scare-off" people who are just trying to scam them out of money.

It was clear to everyone that he was at-fault. He pulled out of a side road onto a busy highway without stopping. That's how he hit me head-on. Not to mention that he was drunk and high and not working at 2:30 p.m. on a Tuesday.

I got enough money to pay off my then-medical bills and get another vehicle. Unfortunately, I'll have medical bills for the rest of my life just for pain management and for physical therapy when it really acts up.

I see Judge Judy in lifesaver's future.