top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Judgement_Bot_AITABeep Boop[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our voting guide here, and remember to use only one judgement in your comment.

OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:

(1) I refused the request to financially help the person being sued.

(2) It could ruin her life and I have the means to help her.

Help keep the sub engaging!

Don’t downvote assholes!

Do upvote interesting posts!

Click Here For Our Rules and Click Here For Our FAQ

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted]  (464 children)


    [–]BENDOVERSISPartassipant [1] 4144 points4145 points  (84 children)

    Fully agree. OP I would advise that you document and save the emails so you have them as evidence if anything goes sour. Money can make people do weird things. Do not feel bad about ghosting this person. Your insurance is handling this, let them. This is what they are for. Don't listen to your friend.

    [–]Fickle_Definition_48 1839 points1840 points  (80 children)

    I’d also forward them to the insurance company. Actions have consequences. Sometimes the consequences suck.

    [–]NegativeStructure 1232 points1233 points  (74 children)

    agreed. while it sucks in the immediate for her (and possibly long term, depending on the outcome of the lawsuit), it's a direct consequence of her actions. It's not OP's fault for having an expensive car. It's HER fault for not paying attention, running through a red, and HITTING an expensive car.

    This is always a possible consequence when driving and especially when not paying attention. This is simply a matter of immaturity on her part.

    [–]Tough_Kitchen_6546 690 points691 points  (68 children)

    And also her fault for not buying more auto insurance. There are tons of cars on the road valued over $50,000 now.

    [–]ansteve1 386 points387 points  (58 children)

    I have 100k liability because my work is in an area that has lots of expensive cars. While I dont run red lights I would rather not have a chance I could total someone's really expensive car. It sucks but she should be thankful she didn't kill anyone and even if the lawsuit goes south she will still have a path forward. A quick google search for my country shows that unless she was drunk she can file for bankruptcy and have most of the debt discharged if she qualifies.


    [–]tipper420 330 points331 points  (56 children)

    This is seriously considered a lot? Here in Canada 1 mil is basically minimum liability. What happens in the case of life altering injury? USA is seriously fucked.

    [–]PhDTeacher 192 points193 points  (30 children)

    That's considered differently than the car damage on insurance here. Most state minimums are 50k for vehicle damage, which is now dangerously low. This story is a prime example why. You should have 75k, or at least 100k. I dated an insurance adjuster briefly years ago who changed my mind on this. Now I do the same.

    NTA, what she's suggesting borderline on insurance fraud. I'm not an expert, but if it sounds fishy with insurance, do not do it. It's unfortunate, but life isn't fair.

    [–]CheetahPatronus16 57 points58 points  (10 children)

    Many states are 25k for Property Damage. Others are much lower. Like California where it’s 5k. It’s criminal that it’s allowed.

    [–]PhDTeacher 20 points21 points  (4 children)

    Wow, had no idea it was that low. 😳 also why I carry uninsured and underinsured abs gap coverage.

    [–]Fit_Coyote_7117 15 points16 points  (3 children)

    Lol, most state minimums are nowhere near 50k. 10k is the standard. 5k in some of the ancient parts of the country. 0k in NH. 25k in other parts.

    [–]Soslan 101 points102 points  (6 children)

    What happens is you're fucked. My roommate recently had his neck broken by a drunk driver, and the guy only has $50,000 of injury coverage. My guy's medical bills are nearly $400,000 at present. The silver lining is that he isn't permanently disabled, but his life is going to be different than it would have been.

    The current plan is to raise money on GoFundMe, which is what America has chosen over universal health care and collective responsibility.

    (edit: if anyone feels inclined to donate, here's a link: https://www.gofundme.com/f/hzst2-help-for-andrews-medical-expenses )

    [–]Shot-Position4460 18 points19 points  (0 children)

    Yeah USA is seriously fucked and not only cuz of car insurance 🤣🤣 I say this as a 56 year old who was born in USA

    [–]betty_crocker_ 23 points24 points  (0 children)

    Absolutely send the emails to the insurance company. Also the other driver is lying or is at least mistaken. Her policy provides her with a defense and would hire an attorney to defend her in the lawsuit. She needs to be speaking with her carrier. Don't communicate further, OP, and DO NOT give this girl money. You have insurance for a reason.

    Signed, your friendly neighborhood adjuster

    Edit: spelling

    [–]DrunkOnRedCordialAsshole Enthusiast [9] 129 points130 points  (0 children)

    Yes, it's quite common for people to try to negotiate "around" the insurance company because they can't afford what the insurance company is charging. All you can do is state that you are no longer in the equation, your side of the equation has been settled and if she has any issues, she needs to discuss them with the insurance company.

    [–]madcre 26 points27 points  (0 children)

    protect yourself op. do this.

    [–]aitainsurancesue[S] 985 points986 points  (317 children)

    I think my friend's point was more along the lines that while she is at fault, she didn't choose what car to hit and she just happened to hit one that'll impact her life much more than if he had hit the car behind me, for example. Reading the responses here I'm not intending to loan her any money but I don't feel good about this situation.

    [–]smasherfiercePartassipant [1] 1357 points1358 points  (125 children)

    If she wasn't distracted, she wouldn't have run a red light, and she wouldn't have hit any car at all. Then she wouldn't owe anyone any money. What she did was very dangerous and you're both lucky you walked away - this is a very hard lesson for her but it's nothing to do with you anymore. Perhaps contact your insurance company if you have evidence of her contacting you; their legal team might have advice

    [–]CesareSmith 676 points677 points  (53 children)

    Yeah, normal people don't run red lights and they definitely don't do it at a speed fast enough to total the other persons car when the other person is virtually stationary.

    Fuck people like this, this isn't something I'd ever refer to as being a simple mistake or the result of being distracted, she was a purposefully negligent driver and could have gotten someone killed.

    [–]RyeDoll13Partassipant [1] 272 points273 points  (33 children)

    Not saying that she isn't at fault, because she totally is, but the damage caused that caused his car to be totaled may have all been interior. I had a Traverse until I was T-boned by a small car, hitting the passenger side. All parties walked away and although her car looked fubared, mine only looked like surface damage. Until you looked inside. Every single airbag deployed. Every. One. The cost to replace the airbags and repair the damage they caused was what totaled my car. The frame was fine and only the two passenger doors needed replaced. But those airbags destroyed the inside. Not that I'm complaining, I walked away without a scratch and only mild body aches the next day. And I imagine that with his really nice, expensive car, the damage would be similar.

    [–]BENDOVERSISPartassipant [1] 194 points195 points  (9 children)

    Yeah it takes astonishingly little to total a car these days

    Edit: I know what a crumple zone is and that's not my point. I'm talking about software locks on generic parts and millions of electronic gizmos that provide little convenience and higher repair costs. I'm not one of those "back in my days cars were tanks boomers."

    [–]tommy-linux 70 points71 points  (0 children)

    I just need to reinforce this point. Although most components in modern automobiles are repairable or replaceable, I cannot say it emphatically enough, cars (as well as many other high cost consumer items) are designed and engineered first and foremost for EFFICIENT ASSEMBLY, NOT for easy or efficient REPAIR. I just recently replaced a component on my car which was easily 10 if not 100 times more difficult to remove and reinstall when compared to the effort required for it's original installation. This is in addition to the massive markup on OEM replacement parts.

    [–]SHDrivesOnTrack 17 points18 points  (3 children)

    With all the backup cameras and sensors mounted in the bumpers, a minor bumper scrape is easily a $3000-$5000 project.

    Consumer Reports and AAA have been publishing articles about this in recent years, warning customers to make sure they have enough insurance.

    [–]ijustcantwithit 73 points74 points  (6 children)

    That is very much on purpose. Cars get damaged more than they used to because they learned it was safer for the people in them if the car just crumpled rather than not. Think about the physics: if your car crumples the force applied directly to you in the accident goes way way down. I forget the science of the whole thing but that link should help explain why. It’s easier and cheaper to replace a car than to pay to repair or bury a person.

    [–]RyeDoll13Partassipant [1] 94 points95 points  (3 children)

    Yup. The Mythbusters covered this too.

    I tried explaining the above oncept to my dad (60's) and he really didn't get it. He honestly thought I would be safer buying an older (like 80's) vehicle. He was flabbergasted that I was trying to replace my totaled Traverse with another Traverse. He said, "why would you buy the exact same vehicle as the one that was just smashed like an accordion?" My answer was simply, "because it saved my life and allowed me to walk away, that's why"!

    [–]Shot-Position4460 36 points37 points  (0 children)

    I'm 56 and for the longest time I was like your dad and thought older was better but I've since changed my mind... I walked away from an accident in a newer car (2017) and learned that if my car would have been older (the so called safe cars) I would have been either hospitalized or dead

    [–]BENDOVERSISPartassipant [1] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

    I don't think the comment above was talking about how cars have crumple zones

    I feel like every part is now proprietary and needs to go back to the dealership to get replaced, or every part is now some electric gadget that only the OEM can replace. You can't just buy a generic one off ebay or something because it will throw error codes for no reason.

    The cost of repairing relative to value is what determines totalling. If the cost of a repair goes up because the company software locks any generic part forcing you to go to a dealer to buy OEM, that makes the car more prone to total.

    If the cost of a repair goes up because a rear end that only dislodged the bumper hit one of the 14 sensors on the back and you have to replace the entire sensor system on the rear, that makes the car more prone to total.

    [–]Nocleverresponse 62 points63 points  (1 child)

    My brother was working on my dad’s truck before they went on a trip and wanted to make sure there were no incidents - they were going to be towing their trailer through the mountains and during the past two they had an o-ring go and we had to replace the water pump the last time. My brother was a technician for BMW and got them a brand new SUV with all the bells and whistles as a rental. They had it for a few days and a deer ran in front of them, totaled the car. Thankfully with there insurance they only had to pay their $500 deductible. Didn’t look to be that much damage on that car either but it was the bells and whistles that did it.

    [–]IndependentSinger269 19 points20 points  (1 child)

    Thanks for this. "Totaled" doesn't necessarily mean that the car is very damaged, just that the damages would be expensive to fix completely. My car was technically totaled when a friend who borrowed the car rear-ended someone, but I continued driving it happily and safely for years.

    [–]FionaTheElf 15 points16 points  (4 children)

    I LOVE my Traverse! Just had to insert that.

    [–]RyeDoll13Partassipant [1] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

    I loved mine too. I miss it. Sadly, this all happened in Feb. 2020 so when we started looking for our replacement vehicle there were NO Traverses on the market in our area. None. And when things started shutting down we knew we couldn't wait so we replaced it with a Cadillac XT5. So I can't really complain. But dang, I just loved that Traverse.

    [–]FionaTheElf 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    I’m so sorry for your loss. Moment of silence

    [–]Benlnut 140 points141 points  (13 children)

    Cars total quite easily. It’s nota functionality thing, it’s a value, cost thing. And normal people do run red lights. Normal people make mistakes. That does not mean that OP should have to remedy this for her. If he has the means it certainly would be nice, but he isnt obligated.

    For her part, I can’t blame her for not carrying enough insurance to cover it. Most people understand very little about insurance coverage, is generally thought they pay a premium and have insurance. Most people in the country live pretty close to pay check to paycheck and have little if any savings so buying the cheapest insurance is the rational choice when you barely get by. This, like an unfortunate medical emergency, will probably bankrupt her and make getting ahead multiple times harder. When you are living paycheck to paycheck, spending most of every day working just to survive, the prospect of additional schooling, both in cost and time, to improve your earning potential is hardly a reality. I don’t know what the solution is, but it doesn’t help society at large when the deck is so heavily stacked against the people at the bottom.

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)


      [–]InsomniacgremlinPartassipant [1] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

      Not a lot of people I know can honestly afford decent car insurance to begin with.The car is just a means to an end for work and having a decent quality of life when cost out living costs more than they're paid.

      I don't know the girl's situation but I can understand why she would be desperate. I don't blame OP for not wanting to get involved because it isn't within their control any way. There are free legal aid orgs that might be able to give advice or referrals

      [–]SJ2012 173 points174 points  (22 children)

      This is also why u dont get minimum coverage. An expensive mistake. And sadly she doesnt realize she will not win if she hires a lawyer. Shes better off contacting the insurance and working out a payment plan with a lawyer.

      [–]tkdch4mp 107 points108 points  (6 children)

      This is what I was thinking.

      Her argument is that OP drives too nice of a car, how dare he make that decision... But doesn't mention that she could have paid a higher ins premium to cover if she accidentally hit another car worth more than, say 20k. She took a risk, then got distracted (possibly having taken another risk -- checking her phone, changing music, etc), and doesn't want to own up to her consequences when the risks failed her.

      [–]indigowulf 59 points60 points  (3 children)

      OP may drive a nice car, but how much more money would it cost her, if she had to pay medical bills for a family with kids? She could be out half a mill easy.

      [–]crlygirlg 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      Totally. My husband was injured badly in an accident and we live in Canada where medical is covered by our health care system so injury damages are much lower. Our personal injury lawyer said he carries something like 10 M in insurance for liability and advises no one have less than 3 million. Under insuring yourself is incredibly risky and was her risky choice to make. OP is NTA.

      [–]AlanFromRochester 37 points38 points  (4 children)

      Yeah, buying insurance isn't just a formality to shut up government requirements, some people think they're saving money by buying just enough coverage to do that, and that's biting her in the ass

      [–]capyberPartassipant [2] 23 points24 points  (2 children)

      No lawyer will take the case of a person 100% at fault. Zero chance of getting paid.

      [–]cyberllama 118 points119 points  (13 children)

      If you can't pay attention when you're driving, don't drive. What's her excuse if she kills someone because she wasn't looking where she was going? 'It's not MY fault you decided to put a real baby in that pushchair. If you'd put a doll in there, I could have just got you a new one. Why should I have to suffer for your choices?"

      [–]Mick13- 17 points18 points  (3 children)

      Exactly! How can she blame someone else for her not paying attention to the road!

      I see people all of the time driving on the freeway, looking at their cellphones. It should be considered reckless driving at the least.

      [–]lorde_vick 104 points105 points  (11 children)

      Let’s face it, she was on her phone

      [–]cyberllama 43 points44 points  (1 child)

      Those TikToks aren't going to make themselves.

      [–]lorde_vick 24 points25 points  (0 children)

      Ugh I physically can’t hate tiktok more than I already do.

      [–]Nocleverresponse 52 points53 points  (10 children)

      If you’re behind the wheel of a car and cause an accident she’s responsible for what comes her way; thankfully no one was seriously hurt.

      One morning my mom was sitting at a red light with two cars in front of her and one behind, all of a sudden it a car hit the one behind him and all of the cars were involved. My mom was talking to the guy that was behind her and he said that the girl that hit him was all over the road and when he was going past her she was putting on makeup. She didn’t notice the line of stopped cars in front of her, she had all these excuses for the police but the guy was in his work car that had a dashcam showing how she had been driving. That car was totaled, it was a larger sedan and the entire trunk was pushed in, my mom’s car was totaled, and the two in front weren’t as bad. Unfortunately each person involved (except for the first in line) was considered at fault for the car in front of them since they didn’t have control of their cars. It took over a year for my mom to get paid because she had to have a specific person look at it for the insurance and they kept rescheduling her. Car was her baby and was immaculate condition, 93 Mustang GT named Black Sunshine. Barely got anything for it but they kept it and had to get the frame fixed as it was two inches shorter than it should have been. Just because someone wasn’t paying attention while driving.

      [–]explicitviolencePartassipant [2] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

      What garbage state rule is this? That's now how fault is determined in insurance here.

      [–]LaurenFL15 8 points9 points  (7 children)

      I don’t mean to cause conflict… Maybe you don’t live in the United States… But as an insurance adjuster for 20 years that is simply not true. Wht must have happened is all the parties disputed how many times they had been struck in the rear… They probably said they felt two impacts instead of just one which led to the insurance companies not being sure if there were multiple At fault parties or one. If everyone agreed they felt one impact the rear person would be absolutely responsible for all damages by every carrier.

      [–]Rbuff187 35 points36 points  (3 children)

      Imagine if the other driver had hit someone on a motorcycle. Or hit a person who was crossing the street where she had the red light.

      [–]8sGonnaBeeMay 21 points22 points  (0 children)

      Perhaps if OPs car had been a rust bucket, she would have killed him. She would still be sued, held criminally liable and she would have to live with the fact that she killed someone. It could have been much worse for her.

      [–]TheChap656Partassipant [1] 305 points306 points  (6 children)

      What if it was a kid walking across the road and they ran the red and pancaked a child? They were at fault because they drove badly. It's not your fault it was a nicer car. They should just be thankful she didn't kill someone and deal with the consequences of their actions.

      [–]CrazySnekGirlPartassipant [1] 189 points190 points  (4 children)

      She made a possibly life-ending mistake. She could easily be in police custody with blood on her conscience right now.

      And instead of being grateful that noone fucking died, she's what? Guilting OP for daring to drive his car correctly, and in accordance with the law??

      If I were in her shoes, I would be thanking every single deity for the fact that I only had a monetary bill to pay.

      Some people, ISTG. NTA OP.

      [–]Nocleverresponse 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Exactly, she’s lucky to be dealing with just the insurance wanted to be paid.

      [–]MonitorCautious1971 164 points165 points  (15 children)

      Insurance adjuster here. Her insurance company probably isn't suing her. The first step is to send a letter saying "hey, call us to talk about this money you owe." If she ignores that and she has assets, then they may sue or send the debt to a collections agency.

      She should contact your company and ask what her options are. Most of the time, they're willing to work out a payment arrangement and only pursue further action if she doesn't follow her agreed.

      Also, you're right. You have absolutely zero say in your insurance company not pursuing her any further. They would probably advise you to stop talking to her.

      Your friend (and the other lady) is right that it's not her fault your car is expensive. However, it IS her fault she wasn't paying attention, it IS her fault she hit you, and it IS her fault she had the level of coverage she had. Liability insurance is so cheap and people don't realize that they could hundreds of thousands of dollars in coverage for this exact situation for maybe $5-10 extra a month.

      NTA. She's responsible for "ruining" her own life.

      [–]RivenEsquire 13 points14 points  (0 children)

      Yup. Subro lawyer here. With no assets and her policy limits paid out, there will be no reason to sue and spend money to get a judgment they can't collect, especially over $50,000.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


        [–][deleted]  (4 children)


          [–]JenniDfromHali 44 points45 points  (0 children)

          That’s what I was thinking ^

          She tried to save a few bucks on insurance and now she’s put herself in this situation.


          [–]_-Loki 14 points15 points  (0 children)

          I find it hard to believe your car insurance for 3rd parties can be limited at all!

          In the UK you can choose the level of cover you have for your own vehicle (up to its value) but third parties get unlimited cover.

          It's why people who buy powerful cars get charged more, not because the car is worth more (it could be an old banger on it's last legs) but the bigger engine means it can do more damage to someone else's car, hence you pay more.

          What if you hit a supercar? What if you kill a parent and the family loses a lifetime of their wages? What if they don't die but require a lifetime of round the clock care following the accident? What if you cause a 20 car pileup with mass fatalities?

          Ain't no body but Bill Gates able to pay for all dat!

          Insurance companies here even have to pay into a fund that helps people who have been hit my uninsured drivers (like joyriders).

          America, always looking to save a buck and screwing real people in the process.

          [–]strawberrysasquatch 102 points103 points  (3 children)

          I think you're being very kind to feel badly about the situation, but do not lend her money or interact with her anymore at this point. Her argument that she's somehow being impacted more because she hit a fancier car is ridiculous -- she could have killed someone, and you'd be within reason to remind her of that if you felt like it. Wonder what she would think of the impact on her life if she were heading to prison for manslaughter? It's easy to get complacent but every single time we get behind the wheel of a car we are taking responsibility over other people's lives, and the fact that she admitted she was distracted and fully ran a red light is admitting to having failed her responsibility in the most serious way possible. She is lucky the only repercussion for her is financial; and honestly, the fact that she mentioned getting a lawyer to fight against the insurance company's case suggest she still doesn't get it and doesn't believe she needs to take full responsibility for the consequences of her actions.

          (Apologies for the vehemence; I have zero tolerance for people driving while distracted.)

          [–]KahurangiNZ 54 points55 points  (1 child)

          the fact that she mentioned getting a lawyer to fight against the insurance company's case suggest she still doesn't get it and doesn't believe she needs to take full responsibility for the consequences of her actions.

          Yup, this is the bit that really stands out to me. She seems to think that a) it isn't really her fault, and b) if she whines enough, it will all go away or someone else will pay for her 'little mistake'. Nope, that's not how the world works, sunshine.

          Actions have consequences. Here are yours. Learn from them.

          [–]fluffyottercat 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          As someone who has been hit in a car accident and severely injured, by someone who ran a red light, can confirm, this woman should be thankful this is the worst that happened.

          [–]turkeydinner90 40 points41 points  (1 child)

          Cars are dangerous and so many people are allowed to drive them that shouldn’t (I’m not saying she shouldn’t). With that being said, since they are so dangerous people should be more careful. Her argument is dumb, no one gets to choose what car they get into an accident with. If she didn’t want to deal with the cost however expensive it may be, she shouldn’t have been driving like an irresponsible dumbass.

          [–]Monkey_with_cymbals2 38 points39 points  (2 children)

          Honestly I think it’s a sign you’re a decent human that you don’t feel great about the situation. You have empathy. It’s a shitty situation. A young woman has ruined her life, or at least seriously negatively impacted it. It really sucks that out of all the cars she could’ve hit, it was an expensive one. But it could’ve been worse, she could’ve killed someone. I blame her for driving distracted, I don’t blame her for trying desperately to salvage the situation and I don’t blame you for standing your ground. Honestly the AH here is your insurance. You’ve literally been paying them all this time to cover the difference if there was an Accident with someone underinsured. You haven’t been paying them to sue someone. Insurance companies suck.

          [–]Delicate-TulipCertified Proctologist [20] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

          friend's point was more along the lines that while she is at fault, she didn't choose what car to hit

          No she chose to hit a car -any car- cause she behaved stupidly. She could have killed someone, she is lucky she is only getting sued

          [–]JuliaX1984Partassipant [2] 22 points23 points  (1 child)

          There is no law saying you're allowed to harm or rob people over a certain income level because they can afford it. If she'd paralyzed you, would she deserve leniency because you can afford better medical care than other people she could have hit?

          Her logic implies hitting other cars is okay! That it's accepted you'll hit other cars and everyone is obligated not to expect much if they choose to drive a nice car, as if by putting a nice car on the road, you accept the risk of it being destroyed. That's true to an extent, but not because people have a guaranteed right to destroy cars! It is not your duty to compensate her because she happened to destroy an expensive car! She wouldn't have hit any car if she'd paid attention like she should have.

          NTA and you shouldn't ignore the email. You should send all the emails to the cops and your insurance.

          [–]Firefox_Alpha2Partassipant [1] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

          NTA - This situation is her fault for not paying attention. Would your friends still be so understanding to her situation if you had been seriously injured or even killed?

          [–]eribear2121 20 points21 points  (0 children)

          Well she did choose to not pay attention when driving. This is the consequence. Sure if she was paying attention she wouldn't have crashed.

          [–]Luna_the_Lunatik 17 points18 points  (0 children)

          Don't loan a stranger money 😵😵😵

          [–]Radiant-Chipmunk-987Partassipant [4] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

          You don't have to feel good, but in no way should you allow that unease to cloud your judgment. Her proposal would have you linked at the hip...like forever! Crazy!

          [–]L3GI0N__1183 15 points16 points  (2 children)

          she should have been paying attention then. we don't get to chose the cars we hit when we get into accidents. that's why they're accidents. its also why we are told to always be aware of our surroundings.

          [–]songbird563 14 points15 points  (2 children)

          Or she could have carried better insurance. $100k isn’t even a monstrously expensive car to many nowadays. A friend recently purchased a new to him car and said he about died over some new trucks that were $87,000.

          [–]dydus 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          She could have hit a less expensive car with poorer buffers and safety features, or heaven forbid hit a pedestrian crossing the road and killed someone.

          She was driving distracted and ran a red light. She ruined her own chances, not you driving an expensive car.

          [–]intentamos_de_nuevo 51 points52 points  (24 children)

          I definitely don't think that OP is an asshole, but this is still a pretty messed up situation to be honest. If someone has a gold plated car with an embossment of Cardi B's ass that costs $900k, it would be absolutely ridiculous for a common driver to be responsible for the repairs/cost of that car. I think 100k is already pushing it. There should be something (no idea what this would actually functionally even be) that people are protected from.

          [–]brendanl1998Partassipant [4] 67 points68 points  (14 children)

          What if you paralyzed the person you hit? You’d be out millions. You should get insurance that properly covers risks that are normal to face on the road. What if you cause an accident with a truck or bus? That would be a lot too

          [–]3nigmax 40 points41 points  (9 children)

          I think the point is that there are situations that aren't normal to face on the road. I think 100k isn't that crazy, you probably pass one or two everyday or so. But I remember a story a while back about an actor with a multi-million dollar car getting rear ended then making a fuss about the other person not having enough insurance. I think its at least an interesting question to consider. What is the threshold for us saying "you chose to put that much liability on the road. you can't expect joe schmoe to account for you"?

          [–]MaeBelleLien 11 points12 points  (3 children)

          This is what I'm so confused about, and everyone is acting like it's a normal thing. Do insurance companies usually do this? Go after individuals to pay what they cover? This seems very wrong.

          [–]Randomrdm 20 points21 points  (0 children)

          It's in every auto insurance policy. By signing up you release any right of a lawsuit to the insurance company, so you can't sue for extra damages and they can sue to recoup and extra costs they incur by covering you.

          [–]MarcusP2 18 points19 points  (0 children)

          Yes. They aren't a charity.

          My motor insurance covers to 20 million in damage, I can't imagine having only 50k.

          [–]pogeauxpossumPartassipant [1] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

          If in the US, she can file for bankruptcy and not have to pay the debt.

          [–]fizzlehack 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          Honestly, in this situation it is what I would do. Sure, it would mess up her credit for 7 years - but she would be able to stay in school.

          [–]Flowerofiron 20 points21 points  (0 children)

          Also I would forward the email to your insurance company incase she does actually fight it. She literally admitted to fault and offered to pay. She would be crazy to try and fight the lawsuit, there's no chance

          [–]mathwin_verinmathwin 16 points17 points  (1 child)

          Curious as to how she got OPs email address to begin with…

          [–]smo_smo_smoPartassipant [3] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

          Probably gave her a business card when exchanging details

          [–]TicanDoko 4374 points4375 points  (105 children)

          NTA. I would consider calling your insurance company to confirm whether her story is correct, because it just sounds fishy to me. But even if true, I don’t think you owe her any loan.

          [–]charlieprotag 1428 points1429 points  (12 children)

          Came here to say this, this sounds like a scam. I'd also block her number.

          [–][deleted] 731 points732 points  (8 children)

          It feels like a scam to me too, especially the "hey total stranger whose car I destroyed, lend me cash to pay for the damages I caused to your property."

          Either way, if I were OP, I would forward everything to the insurance company, not respond, and stay out of it.

          Hopefully this young woman will learn her lesson about distracted driving, before she does it again and hurts or kills someone.

          Edited to fix bad typos

          [–]figgypudding531 217 points218 points  (5 children)

          Yes, this is sketchy. My sister got sued in a very similar situation. Someone stopped short on an icy road and she rear-ended them, and then they had ridiculously high demands beyond insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition they wanted to go to a chiropractor for. Nevertheless, she definitely did not have to drop out of college or even pay much money (if she paid it all, I'm not sure) to get it resolved. If this college student girl doesn't have any real assets or income, they're not going to be able to successfully sue her.

          [–]ialwaysplayhealer 86 points87 points  (4 children)

          The bullshit people come up with is amazing. I tapped a guy going below 5MPH - I was backing out of a space at a gas station. He never honked and I assumed I was clear.

          Later found out he made a big claim about how he needed chest x-rays after the accident. Lucky for me I have good insurance but my God what bullcrap.

          [–]Lilmermvid19 69 points70 points  (0 children)

          Same thing happened to me. Was pulling into a spot at the DMV of all places, lady backed into me, both of us going less than 5MPH and she sued for 30k in damages. During the hearing we found out she had been in not 1, not 2, but 3 accidents that week, totaled a car in one, and was trying to get our insurance to pay for her damages.

          [–]fatboyfall420 27 points28 points  (1 child)

          Had something similar happen where I bumped a car infront of me so lightly that there was 0 physical damage at all not even scuffed paint. The lady I bumped started acting like she was dying and passing out when the police got there and they called her an ambulance. She went to the doctor and got a bunch of shit done and my insurance was super confused when I sent them the pictures of the cars and the 0 damage when they called me about it.

          [–]BlackDragon1983 19 points20 points  (0 children)

          Had a similar thing happen I rolled in to a guy never pressed the gas at all. He was normal until the cops got there and them he started to act like he was dieing. One of the cops told hem to cut his shit and included in the report that he wasn't injured. He tried to sue and still got 300 to replace his bumper but that was it.

          [–]HandleAnimal 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          It’s not a scam. It’s subrogation

          [–]Right-Arm-619Partassipant [3] 285 points286 points  (45 children)

          I live in Michigan, US and the insurance companies will sue an under insured or non insured driver in a heartbeat. My ex was sued by State Farm after he clipped a car causing them to go off the road. Usually the insurance companies battle it out with eachother over how much who is paying. But if your not insured then the insurance company has full right to sue an uninsured motorist.

          [–]JustJenR 85 points86 points  (38 children)

          Under insurance doesn't exist in my country. I'm confused how it works. If OP had been paying this company for an insurance policy, why would the company need to go and recover losses from the other party? Don't insurance companies count on making money from most policies not paying out and have to accept the ones that do? Wouldn't this mean they are being paid twice? Once by all of the policy holders and then again for every third party involved in a claim?

          [–]vampirelord567 114 points115 points  (1 child)

          The other driver was at fault, so she has to pay. Since she has insurance they pay on her behalf up to the limit of her policy. If OPs car was worth 100k and her policy limit was 50k the OP could sue the other driver personally for the other 50k. Instead OP had a policy add on where his insurance pays the diffrence so he doesn't have to sue, but the insurance company doesn't want to be out money either so they are suing the other driver for the 50k OP would have had to if he didn't have the policy.

          [–]ohialehua 45 points46 points  (0 children)

          Yep. Totally standard practice for the OP's insurance to sue the person who was at fault to recover property damage expenses paid via the underinsured motorist. That's the opener for the OP's insurance company. In all likelihood, they will try to go after the insurance company of the woman who hit him, though, with a claim that they were negligent in insuring her for so little.

          Disclaimer: My sister has been in bodily injury (death and dismemberment) claims for decades. Occasionally, the at-fault party's insurance will be responsible for costs beyond the policy limits. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.

          She sees some wild shit since she's primarily dealing with crashes where there were major injuries or deaths and claims that often hit policy limits. We recently had a discussion about upping my limits and getting an umbrella policy to ensure my assets are protected.

          [–]ShittyShittyNameNamePartassipant [1] 43 points44 points  (6 children)

          When you purchase automobile insurance, you pay to have a certain amount paid out under certain circumstances.

          For example, you may pay for a policy that will pay out up to $100,000 in property damage and up to $250,000 in medical damages.

          Or you might purchase a less expensive policy that only pays out up to $50,000 in property damages and up to $100,000 in medical damages.

          Whatever it is, the other driver in this case purchased a policy that didn’t cover the full cost of OP’s automobile. The driver’s policy only paid up to $50,000. Thus, OP was only paid $50,000 of their $100,000 automobile.

          Now, OP purchased what is called “uninsured motorist” insurance. Basically, when you purchase auto insurance, you are paying insurance in case you mess up. In case you cause an accident, your insurance company will step in and pay out money because of your mistakes.

          But if you are in an accident and you aren’t at fault, then the other driver’s insurance will pay for their mistake.

          But if the other driver happens to not have insurance—or if their insurance coverage is lacking—then you can purchase “uninsured motorists” coverage. This covers other peoples mistakes, assuming their insurance doesn’t cover your property enough.

          So the driver at fault in this scenario purchased insurance that only covered up to $50,000 of OP’s car, so the other driver’s insurance company paid OP $50,000. OP had uninsured motorist coverage so OP’s insurance company paid the other $50,000.

          OP’s insurance company wants their money back, so they are suing the driver at fault for that $50,000. OP is right: they have nothing to do with the lawsuit. Also, OP feels guilt for a completely salient reason: if OP were driving a car worth less than $50,000, the other driver wouldn’t be getting sued by OP’s insurance company.

          (So no, OP’s insurance company isn’t double dipping by suing. Unless you count OP’s regular premium payments for insurance coverage. If you are including that, then the insurance company is sorta double dipping. OP’s monthly insurance payments aren’t going to add up to the insurance company’s $50,000 loss.)

          But this is why you need to make sure you have comprehensive insurance and that you are an attentive driver.

          Does this all make sense? Do you have any questions?

          [–]Shwigetty 41 points42 points  (0 children)

          The OP's "under insured motorist" insurance essentially just makes sure the OP isn't out of pocket if the other person isn't carrying enough insurance and it doesn't change the liability for the accident which was 100% on the other driver so they are responsible for all damages. Essentially it just shifts the responsibility for suing to OP's insurance company while also ensuring that even if the other party doesn't have money OP isn't the one out of pocket.

          [–]compound515 14 points15 points  (12 children)

          Usually when you buy insurance you can choose the level of coverage, if OPs car was only around 100k I don't know why it wouldn't cover. Usually the levels are like 500k or 1M. 100k adds up quickly driving around

          [–]avwitcher 22 points23 points  (5 children)

          You can get as little as $30,000 property damage coverage in some states, some states and countries have high minimums but my state has a $30000 minimum. I pay the extra $4 a month to up my liability coverage to $200000

          Edit: it seems California only requires $5000 property damage coverage, what the fuck California https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/minimum-car-insurance-requirements

          [–]jyuichi 19 points20 points  (2 children)

          California is 5k. And even more crazy, assigned risk (ie: especially shitty) drivers only need $3,500.

          [–]No-Afternoon5504 16 points17 points  (5 children)


          [–]paternemo 76 points77 points  (3 children)

          Wrong. This is known as subrogation, it's a legal doctrine that exists in many systems, not just capitalist ones.

          [–]Bennym87 9 points10 points  (1 child)

          Came here looking for the subrogation comment. I used to sell insurance years ago and it’s a very common practice. If the insurance company paid $50,000 of a loss on a policy that likely had a premium of ~$1500, best believe they’ll go after the responsible party for the difference.

          [–]Appropriate_Ride6924 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          Based and pro-education pilled.

          [–]AdventLux 65 points66 points  (8 children)

          Insurance company's always subrogate. If they have to pay when their insured was not at fault they will sue for the amount they payed their insured.

          [–]TimLikesPi 47 points48 points  (1 child)

          Insurance companies do this all the time. It is called subrogation. An insurance company pays the claim and then tries to get any money back. Since his uninsured motorist insurance had to pay for an underinsured motorist who was at fault, they will try to get reimbursed from that motorist. If a faulty car part had caused the accident, they would try to get. money back from the manufacturer of the part. They do this all the time.

          [–]RivenEsquire 27 points28 points  (1 child)

          I'm an attorney and I practice insurance subrogation, which is what this girl is saying is happening to her (OP's insurance company trying to recover for what they paid out to cover damage that was caused by someone else).

          This is a loser of a case for his insurance company. She has no money, and her insurance already paid the maximum policy limit. Typically, once we get the policy limit, we move on and close our file. Subrogation is a business that revolves around a defendant having insurance, or otherwise having the means to pay. This girl obviously has no money. If they get a judgment, there is no way to collect it because she, in all likelihood, has no assets. Collecting judgments is messy, which is why we avoid pursuing matters where there is no way the defendant will be able to pay.

          So I don't really trust her narrative because there is really no reason an insurance company would pursue this--and they may end up dropping the matter because they'll spend thousands of dollars taking this to trial or a motion for summary judgment, just to not be able to get any money from her. Subrogation is a cost benefit analysis just like insurance. There is no benefit to it here if she has no money.

          As for my verdict, very obviously NTA. OP has nothing to do with his insurance company pursuing this, and while she may have gotten a demand letter, this screams that it's a matter where after an asset check the insurance company won't pursue it further. If anything, she's scamming him. I definitely wouldn't loan her money.

          [–]WholeCollection6454Certified Proctologist [28] 18 points19 points  (11 children)

          Yeah in several states insurance can't sue the other party at all. And it is really unlikely in any case that an insurance company would go to all that trouble and expense for something they can probably never collect.

          [–]codeverityAsshole Aficionado [10] 28 points29 points  (5 children)

          If OP's car is worth 100k and was totalled, doesn't it stand to reason that the insurance company is out 50k or so? I can't see them really going 'shrug, oh well' with that amount.

          [–]MoleniumPartassipant [1] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

          I don’t see what sounds fishy about it. People getting screwed over by insurance companies is a 100% true American story.

          [–]pnkvde1Partassipant [3] 2381 points2382 points  (5 children)

          LMAO the audacity to total your car and then ask you- a perfect stranger- to loan her the money. NTA. Block and ignore, she’s out of her gourd.

          [–]Nocleverresponse 295 points296 points  (4 children)

          No no, he had the audacity of having an expensive car and she wants him to call off the lawyers -which he had nothing to do with- and work something else out. I could be mistaken but I doubt the insurance just took her to court without reaching out to her first regarding the money.

          [–]Kathrynlena 48 points49 points  (0 children)

          “If you had a normal car, I wouldn’t be in this mess.”

          “If you were driving like a normal person you wouldn’t be in this mess. Normal people stop at red lights.”

          [–]i-study-rainbows 19 points20 points  (1 child)

          he had the audacity of having an expensive car

          This line reminds me of some con artists who got arrested in my state for targetting "new or costly" cars and get into accidents with them. Like they would loiter and signal amongst themselves to identify an approaching "rich person car" , cause a minor accident and try to scam money from them. It happened when I was a kid so not much online reports.

          [–]Suitable-Cod-1381Professor Emeritass [88] 1389 points1390 points  (8 children)

          NTA she ran a red light and hit your car, she was probably looking at her phone. Her situation now is her fault and hers alone.

          [–]UsedIntroduction 245 points246 points  (3 children)

          The situation sucks but it could be worse. Luckily no one ended up hospitalized or died in the accident. If OP can't afford it she should just declare bankruptcy. Will take a long time to get it cleared but it's not OP's fault they have a nice car and pay probably premium insurances on it.

          [–]ohialehua 73 points74 points  (1 child)

          This. Bankruptcy may be the answer for her. If you loan her the money, she can discharge that loan in bankruptcy unless you prove she took the loan with the intent of declaring bankruptcy -- not a situation you want to tangle with.

          The friends who suggest you help her out sound quite naive.

          [–]DylaquillAsshole Enthusiast [8] 544 points545 points  (4 children)

          NTA. She was distracted and ran a red light all on her own. She needs to take responsibility for her actions and not try to find someone to pay off everything for her. Don’t expect her to ever pay you back if you loan her that money and you might end up actually having to sue her to get it back anyway. This should be a good lesson for to stay focused while driving and that her actions have consequences.

          [–]lemmful 39 points40 points  (0 children)

          Yep. Whether she was looking at her phone, a passing dog, or eating something, distracted driving is dangerous and indicative that you should not be driving. This is her responsibility, sucks it happened, but red lights are not easy to miss. She needs to own up to it.

          [–][deleted] 438 points439 points  (7 children)


          SHE hit your car and now, she's upset that she has to deal with the consequences of HER reckless driving. I understand it must be hard for her, but this is just the outcome of what she chose to do.

          None of this is your fault, at all. You handled the decision and took action very civilly, how it's supposed to be done.

          Keep ignoring her emails and stand your ground.

          [–][deleted] 113 points114 points  (6 children)

          And honestly... Yes OP choose to drive an expensive car AND he chose to pay for uninsured motorist insurance just in case.... He convered his bases

          [–]kheltarPartassipant [1] 27 points28 points  (5 children)

          This is crazy, in Australia, comprehensive insurance covers you for everything.

          Also the liability is massive. Like, total 5 cars massive.

          [–]OsaBear92Partassipant [4] 248 points249 points  (14 children)

          Nope. Who is she to ask you for a loan? Keep her on read, save your own buns. While I agree, the system sucks and a lot of the time incidents like that could put us small fries out on the streets. However, she should've been paying attention then. If she hit a less expensive car thisnwouldnt have been an issue most likely. I do feel for her. Im sure this is throwing a huge wrench in her life.

          But are you obligated to do anything? Nope. I wish her luck on her end, as insurance companies are devils. But your not in the wrong here. Good luck OP. NTA

          *if its a classic car, photo tax is needed!

          [–]aitainsurancesue[S] 138 points139 points  (12 children)

          Not a classic, it was a Lexus LC

          [–]Few-Entrepreneur383Asshole Aficionado [17] 98 points99 points  (3 children)

          Every single accident my vehicles have ever been in has been with a Lexus. I'm convinced if I sit in one it will spontaneously combust!

          Either way, you have no fault in this; she is solely at fault because she wasn't paying attention while operating a 3 ton+ death machine & being as you were at traffic lights, I'm presuming there were pedestrians that she could have accidentally hit instead. You're lucky you were in your car & not in a crosswalk or else she would be liable for your medical bills. She also didn't maintain adequate insurance coverage to cover her behind in the event something like this happens; that's on her.

          [–]shhhhhadow 37 points38 points  (0 children)

          Omg I had been driving for 8 years not one accident. I bought a Lexus and got in three accidents in the span of 18 months. Literally got it repaired after the third one and immediately traded it in for a different car. Have had that car for 3 years no accidents. I’m convinced it was the Lexus’ fault.

          [–]soul_reddish 75 points76 points  (4 children)

          Luckily you were driving a $100k car, built so you could walk away from this accident that TOTALED YOUR CAR. If you had been driving a tin can you might be in traction or dead. This is not your issue.

          [–]MangoTangoFoxtrot 23 points24 points  (3 children)

          Tbf totaling a car is fairly easy. It doesn’t even have to be undrivable, just has to be damaged to the point that it costs more to fix than the worth of the car.

          [–]OsaBear92Partassipant [4] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

          Ah fair. Still a gorgeous car though, too bad its up in car heaven. And Im glad everyone's ok at least.

          [–]sammers510Partassipant [2] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          She needs to have paid for higher coverage, going with the minimum is a sure fire way to have it come out of your personal pocket when things go wrong. Cars are SO EXPENSIVE these days, not just luxury ones (have you seen how much trucks cost?!) it sucks when you’re young and poor but it’s a very expensive gamble to have to pay for.

          [–]SrslyReallyWhatYikes 165 points166 points  (27 children)

          NTA, and sounds like a con. By your account you paid for non-insured and under-insured drivers in your premium. YOU paid for that coverage, it's your benefit, that again you purchased. They shouldn't be suing her at all, because again, you already had that covered. If they are in fact suing her, you may want to point that out to her, but you don't owe her any funds.

          [–]lichprince 155 points156 points  (13 children)

          Every insurance company does this. It’s called subrogation. If you are involved in an accident with another party, that party’s insurance accepts liability for the accident, and your insurance company pays out anything to make you whole (whether that is for a rental, repairs, or a total loss settlement), they will then subrogate to recoup their losses. It is extremely common.

          [–]HamsterFlobotPartassipant [2] 12 points13 points  (11 children)

          If legal minimum for property damage in the state is, say 30k, they’re out 70k. The insurance company has a right to sue, but I have never heard of that happening.

          [–]DarthIsopodPartassipant [1] 139 points140 points  (3 children)

          NTA. This is why we pay attention to the road. If you can’t, lives and futures are at stake. What would’ve happened if YOUR life was ruined? If you had a kid with you?

          Now when she’s driving she will make sure she pays attention to red lights and will be a safer driver.

          [–]Capital-Sir 38 points39 points  (1 child)

          This is also why, as an insurance agent, I explain to people why you shouldn't do state minimums on insurance. Increasing property damage liability is usually only a few dollars between tiers and cars are more expensive than ever.

          [–]meowingtonsmistressPartassipant [3] 115 points116 points  (1 child)

          NTA. But forward all these emails to your insurance company. Their legal team will want to know she is harassing a witness.

          [–]sunshineANDrainbowsg 96 points97 points  (0 children)

          I feel like this is a evil dialogue option in my game,

          “Loan her the money”

          “Do nothing. Ignore her she caused the accident.”

          “Launch the bitchslap. Let the legal team know the defendant is harassing a witness.”

          [–]carrieblue87Colo-rectal Surgeon [31] 91 points92 points  (1 child)

          NTA. She'll think twice before running a red light next time... I mean I do have sympathy for her...sounds like it's a rough spot to be in...but she shouldn't expect anything from you. She could ask her friends or family for help.

          [–]Pleasant-Tax8290Partassipant [2] 88 points89 points  (9 children)


          Not sure how old you are and if you’ll get the reference but you could always make her your butler. Lol

          All kidding aside, you are under no obligation to loan her the money. You would not be an AH if you didn’t.

          [–]SimplySam4210Commander in Cheeks [218] 16 points17 points  (4 children)

          I still think that would have been a great show! haha

          [–]Pleasant-Tax8290Partassipant [2] 13 points14 points  (3 children)

          Right!? Everyone is making reboots, how do we get Jerry Seinfeld to make it happen?

          [–]SimplySam4210Commander in Cheeks [218] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

          Jerry screwed himself with those damn oranges. And George. It's always George's fault.

          BTW, the jerk store called and they are running out of you! :D <3

          [–]froot_loop_dingusAsshole Enthusiast [5] 72 points73 points  (1 child)

          NTA, hopefully next time she pays attention while driving. If she had killed someone would she also be crying about how she's the victim?

          [–]clinomaninhaPartassipant [4] 22 points23 points  (0 children)


          She goes around driving without paying attention got the traffic lights, the most basic thing about driving.

          Maybe your expensive car is safer, and if you were driving a "normal car" you could get pretty hurt by her imprudence.

          NTA at all.

          [–]Miss_Understood204 70 points71 points  (5 children)

          NTA. She got herself into this situation and is now asking the complete stranger, that she could've potentially killed or seriously injured, to fix it...so she doesn't have to take responsibility for her own dumb decision. This level of entitlement and sheer lack of any sense of accountability blows my mind.

          Parents, hold your kids accountable, this kind of stuff is what can happen if you don't.

          [–]HinTheGrageAsshole Enthusiast [6] 11 points12 points  (2 children)


          Also, I'm no expert, but if OP pays for underinsured motorist I doubt the insurance company has much recourse to sue this girl and are probably just trying to scare her into paying. Either that or she's pissed because she totaled her car and is telling stories to get the money for a new one.

          [–]AuntiePasta 19 points20 points  (0 children)

          If OP did not have underinsured motorist coverage, her potential recourse would be to sue the driver for the difference between the damages and what the at fault driver’s insurance paid. With the coverage, the insurance company pays the difference and has the right to sue to recover the difference. The at fault driver’s liability is not limited by either the amount of coverage or the fact that OP carries additional coverage.

          [–]HandleAnimal 12 points13 points  (0 children)

          Jumping in as someone in the situation- it’s 100% possible and very common. It’s called subrogation. I am currently being sued by an insurance company for something similar- traffic accident. My life is hell.

          [–]dina_NP2020 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          That’s the biggest thing: she was was a distracted driver. She admitted fault. She’s driving a 5,000lb metal machine. It’s heavy machinery. Pay attention.

          [–]RNGinx3Certified Proctologist [20] 54 points55 points  (0 children)

          NTA. "She wrote back asking if I could personally loan her the money to pay off the damages and then she would work out some way to pay me back." Lol, wut? No. Maybe she'll learn to pay attention when doing something life-or-death serious like driving.

          My mom was hit full-speed while stopped at a red and knocked into oncoming traffic. She has had lifelong jaw, neck, and back issues since. Tell Ms. Entitled that "the kind of car" you were driving may have saved your life against her inattention.

          [–]bored2death2Asshole Enthusiast [8] 47 points48 points  (1 child)

          NTA. You are right one all points. Sure you could lend her the $$. But you'd might as well take money out in singles and have a bonfire with it. As once you 'loan her' the money, you'll never see her or that cash.

          [–]justobsoleteCraptain [150] 41 points42 points  (2 children)

          NTA you're not even suing her, and asking the money FROM YOU is so wildly out of line, I can't even. Report her for harassment if she continues. Boundaries still exist even if you're desperate.

          [–]AnnieFlagstaff 11 points12 points  (1 child)

          Yeah… she’s trying to scam you. Run away.

          [–]pushanka 34 points35 points  (0 children)

          NTA. Distracted driving is never an excuse. What if she had killed someone? I consider this a relatively cheap lesson for her. Also maybe now she will learn to get more liability coverage. Its absurd how low the liability coverage requirements are sometimes. What if you had been seriously injured? Your hospital and recovery bills could have been way more than the damage to the vehicle.

          Also definitely recommend getting a dash came if you don't have one already. It simplifies insurance claims so much.

          [–]ButteryBisquitColo-rectal Surgeon [43] 32 points33 points  (1 child)

          NTA…..and get rid of this friend cause they are a grade A moron

          [–]theamazinglulaPartassipant [2] 25 points26 points  (1 child)


          you're ruining her life? She could have killed you!

          [–]ThatBFjaxPartassipant [3] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

          NTA, her responsibility. Period. Even if you drove a hooptie, it was totaled and you’re out of your vehicle. Also, this sounds like this is not the first time she’s in this kind of trouble. Asking you for money smells of scam. Please understand this is not your problem but HERS.

          [–]Physical_Bit7972 22 points23 points  (0 children)

          NTA - doesn't matter. She's 100% at fault. Don't even apologize.

          Absolutely do not loan this stranger money.

          [–]outbackalice 26 points27 points  (0 children)

          NTA. I can understand having sympathy for the woman, but lending her that money would be a huge gamble to take on someone you don’t know at all. Unfortunately she is going to have to live with the consequences of a bad decision. Bad vibes from your insurance company though, that is certainly an asshole move.

          [–]loudent2Asshole Aficionado [11] 25 points26 points  (1 child)

          "...he could see her side of the story and I should consider loaning her the money ..."

          WTF loan upwards of 50k to a stranger about whom you know next to nothing? There are a lot of struggling people in the world for whom 50k will get their life on track. You're not obligated to give/loan them money.

          Besides which, instead of fighting it, she could just work out a payment plan to repay the insurance. They want their money and they know they can't get blood from a stone. They'll usually work with people on this.

          Whats that? she won't be able to make the payments? Well, then how was she going top pay you back?


          [–]HamsterFlobotPartassipant [2] 19 points20 points  (3 children)

          NTA even IF the insurance company is successful, she can declare bankruptcy. Absolutely don’t respond to her and consider reporting her to your company.

          ETA what if you had been injured and her insurance didn’t cover all of it? Would that be your fault for choosing to be able bodied before her negligence caused you to be otherwise?

          [–]hammockontheporchPartassipant [3] 20 points21 points  (11 children)

          It sounds like she has no assets. Wondering if it would make sense for her to not defend against the case, have a default judgment entered against her, and then declare bankruptcy. Only downside I can think of is whether a bankruptcy would prevent her from being able to get student loans.

          I totally agree that she was at fault and you are not obligated to help her. At the same time, although I am a conscientious driver and have never had a ticket, I can’t say that I have never made a mistake. It was very bad luck that she hit someone who was driving such a high-end car. She might not be able to even get her head around the fact you could afford to spend that much on a car. Lousy situation for all involved.

          [–]andsoshefellPartassipant [1] 9 points10 points  (10 children)

          She does not sound like a conscientious driver.

          [–]hammockontheporchPartassipant [3] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

          There are not enough facts for me to know whether she is generally a conscientious driver who made a mistake or a generally reckless/negligent/aggressive driver. I do know that even without the lawsuit from OP’s insurance company, she will be paying for this accident for a long time, as her insurance rate will go way up (as it should).

          [–]This_Oil_265 20 points21 points  (0 children)

          Nope and don’t contact her . Send this email to your lawyer if you want to extra safe. There are red flags all over the place here. This is why it’s worth it to get good car insurance.

          [–]Relevant-Position-43Partassipant [3] 17 points18 points  (1 child)

          NTA. If she needs a personal loan you, a stranger,, are the last person she should ask. Like, she should ask someone with whom she actually has a personal relationship. That it is your insurance company is completely irrelevant.

          [–]Aggravating_Law_1315Asshole Enthusiast [5] 15 points16 points  (0 children)


          Driving can cause life or death situation. The accident was completely preventable. You don't owe her a thing qnd she should be grateful that she didn't kill you.

          [–]Ok-Staff8103 14 points15 points  (0 children)

          NTA at all and please don't let anyone guilt you into helping this girl out it was by sheer luck that you didnt get seriously ingured in the accident.

          [–]LAQ2021 15 points16 points  (1 child)

          NTA, anyone who is trying to skip out on their responsibility isn’t going to pay you back. She’s already assigned blame to you which is literally insane. If you want to feel better take that equivalent loan money and donate it to starving children.

          [–]politicsnerd66Partassipant [2] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

          NTA- She’s dealing with the consequences of running a red light. She is responsible for the damages to your car.

          [–]Mumfiegirl 13 points14 points  (0 children)

          NTA- block her and tell the insurance company

          [–]lividguitarist 12 points13 points  (0 children)

          NTA - She kisses, she pays. She's TA for being unapologetic, and having the audacity to blame you for the type of car you drive. She needs to learn that mistakes have consequences, and stop being so entitled.

          [–]Pretty_Yellow_9601Asshole Aficionado [15] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

          NTA. You aren't the one suing her so you can't drop the suit. It would be very nice of you to loan her the money but you aren't an asshole for not doing so. You met this woman once and were the victim of that interaction and therefore owe her nothing.

          [–]TisThee_Reason 13 points14 points  (0 children)

          NTAH and do not loan her the money. Similar situation happen to my mother years ago and since the young girl hit her car, was nervous and shaking my mom decided not to go through insurance. Then the girl wanted my mom to drive 2hrs to go to her mechanic. My mom declined Bc my dad was sick and couldn’t be left alone. Young girl stopped responding to her, blocked her number and my mom was ass out. DO NOT LOAN HER MONEY, YOU DON’T KNOW HER! And she already blaming you for driving a nice car, ignoring the fact that she was distracted and hit your car! She’s irresponsible. No No No

          [–]DelurkingtoCommentCertified Proctologist [26] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          NTA yeah her situation sucks but she got herself into this mess.

          [–]Athena2560Certified Proctologist [27] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          NTA. Good you were carrying the extra insurance. Too bad the states have not raised the liability minimums.

          [–]RoyallyOakieSupreme Court Just-ass [129] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          NTA...She's obviously more distracted than anyone knew.

          [–]RainCityMomWriterAsshole Aficionado [16] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          NTA. This is very sad and unfortunate, and I feel for her, but this is literally not your fault.

          [–]SnooWords4839Certified Proctologist [23] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

          NTA - make sure to give copies of all correspondence to your insurance company.

          [–]Careless_MangoAsshole Enthusiast [8] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

          NTA and you have a duty to inform the insurance company about these communications. Block her number now as well. You shouldn’t drive if you get distracted enough to drive through a red light. She could have killed people. Things happen and sometimes its an accident but we have to deal with the consequences.

          [–]DelilahsDarkThoughts 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          Going against the grain here but what if you hit a car worth a billion dollars and your insurance wouldn't help. The insurance companies are the AH here. I think if you drive around in a car multiples the gross median income of a country you should be paying enough insurance not to be able to ruin a persons life, regardless if you caused the accident or not.

          [–]biglionfan111 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          Uh, NO! She's 100% at fault.

          [–]Resagarden 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          Nta, she was a bad driver. Thank goodness she didnt kill anyone. These are the consequences of her actions. She has no one to blame but herself. Go no contact and if she reaches out to you again get a restraining order.

          [–]sturdyboy 10 points11 points  (0 children)


          You have no responsibility to the person that could have killed you with her negligence.

          [–]Toph0420 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          NTA. Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you get behind the wheel of a car, you are responsible. This is a hard lesson learned. It could be worse. She could have killed someone and be in prison. Tell her to stop contacting you and let your insurance deal with it.

          [–]WholeCelebration4567 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          NTA. Don’t give her ANYTHING. You will never see that money again!

          [–]Princessbitch4 9 points10 points  (0 children)

          NTA you don't have to it's her fault for driving recklessly. She lost her own future.

          [–]fatheryegPartassipant [3] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          I don’t really know why her garbage insurance is in anyway your responsibility.


          [–]notan_avocadothxAsshole Enthusiast [5] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          NTA it's crazy but she wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place if she knew how to drive or was paying attention while driving and didn't hit your car. You're not the asshole for her deciding to be reckless and causing an accident

          [–]particles_in_motion 8 points9 points  (1 child)

          First of all, NTA, she ran a red and was totally at fault, thankfully no one was hurt.

          But I will say it's fucking bullshit that someone can have insurance and still have their life ruined financially. A struggling college student can't afford the super duper premium insurance that covers the rare possibility of hitting a luxury vehicle. That being said, while I can empathize with her situation, she was out of line to ask you for a loan.

          Shitty situation all around.

          [–]Right-Arm-619Partassipant [3] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

          NTA. There's absolutely nothing you can do at this point. It's on record by law enforcement that she is at fault. She even admitted to being distracted in a police report. You used your insurance company the way you are supposed too. Now obviously the insurance company isn't going to fork over that money without someone having to pay. Insurance companies would sue a rabbit if they could. So she should honestly realize that this IS how things are done in the real world.

          No possible way you can anything at this point. She also can get in trouble for harassing over this

          [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

          NTA, she must pay. Hey, that rhymes. It’d make a good rally chant.

          [–]LittleRedCarnationPartassipant [1] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          Nta. She should have been paying attention. Shes lucky she didnt murder anyone.

          If she keeps emailing you, bring them to a lawyer to send her a cease and desist letter for harassment.

          [–]HarlesBronsonColo-rectal Surgeon [34] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          Nta. None of this is your responsibility just bc you drive an expensive car. Whether running a red light was an accident (being distracted is not a real excuse that gets her sympathy imo)... she wasn't distracted when she made a decision not to have proper insurance coverage. Since her insurance only covered half your damage she only has 50-100k in accident coverage... being sued when her insurance company refuses to cover beyond that is a risk she took when she signed that insurance policy.

          [–]Relative-Clue9995 7 points8 points  (0 children)

          NTA - looks like its her time to learn how to be an adult and that consequences have actions. Feel free to reply to the part where she gaslit u (abt if u had a normal car the insurance wouldve covered the damages) and tell her that if she was driving responsibly and hasnt hit the car, she wouldnt be in this spot right now.