Subscribe: accident-claim-compensation
Preview: accident-claim-compensation

accident claim compensation

Updated: 2017-07-23T01:44:35.287-07:00


accident compensation claims lost between paragraphs


Process for road accident

A Hungarian motorist violates a Münchnerin, the insurance company promises to the settlement of the claim, but in the end is the victim of the stick. Sigrid B. must experience that you may well be right, it just needs to get a long but not.

Law and justice - for example, Sigrid did not fit together. The Munich was the victim of a normal traffic accident. Now it must find that it indeed be right - and may yet be brought pitfalls in paragraphs jungle-case basis.

The physiotherapist was in May 2007 "were taken from the motor scooter" in the street Denninger of a Hungarian motorist, as she puts it. She suffered a broken collarbone and severe amnesia - can not remember the crash was so. Even the Allianz insurance company admitted in a letter soon after one to a state authority: "The sole fault of the insured at Allianz Hungaria driver is not in dispute." And sitting in the insurance industry Unterföhring further explains: "We regulate this damage to the alliance Hungaria." The pure vehicle damage because they had already refunded.

The dispute was still at the loss of earnings of self-employed as well as pain and suffering. In it, the District Court of Munich I. The traffic judge found the sole responsibility of the Hungarian, who also interpreted "the unconditional control of the property damage as an acknowledgment of debt." She denounced the insurance to pay for injuries and damages.

It was less than hoped for, but Sigrid B. took these amounts - if grudgingly - to be acceptable. Since the accident almost four years had passed: Around 10,000 € attorney fees and an even higher loss of earnings had worn down the self-employed and financially. But their hopes soon to have peace now vanished,: The lawyer for the insurance appealed to the Higher Regional Court of Appeals, called the ruling of first instance "inconsistent and confusing".

The Senate gave OLG transport him to the complete surprise of Sigrid B. Law. The woman had no claim against the German alliance, the Court of Appeal judges judged - this is the wrong defendant. The Munich-based company had appeared only as a "helper regulation." That have paid for this "voluntary" for Allianz Hungaria damages, makes him still a long way to correct Defendant in this litigation.

At this point, Sigrid learned from the first time as "German Office Green Card".Which is responsible for accidents caused by a foreign drivers in Germany. This association, said the court now, the defendant was correct. All this failed to recognize the district court. Sigrid B. had to read this sentence, the feeling of being put off for years with promises - to make them then run into a knife.

Your lawyer wants to give up despite the "significant change in the attitude of the Alliance" and not carry out the sentence at first instance. He refers to another letter in which the alliance has assured him that after the process is finally want to settle the accident - it was the insurance given to recognize themselves as a real adversary process, says the lawyer.

Sigrid B. understand the world anymore - at least not to the lawyers.

Accident on the kart track: Who pays vehicle damage?


Area of Law: Traffic LawJudge of the District Court05/12/2011Actually, no traffic law - but it fits somehow out here:The plaintiff makes a claim against the defendant for damages for an incident from 18/05/2011 to 20.30 clock on the kart track at the L-... asserted in H. On the evening of 18.05.2011, the applicant was working with four of her colleagues on the kart track. Altogether there were two groups on this day on the track. The second group consisted of six English-speaking people. Against Admission Entgeld they used the go-karts and safety helmets of the operator.Farmer to the kart track is the plaintiff. The track is divided into a 600-meter indoor and 300 meters of outdoor area, where the train before Re-entrance into the hall narrows quickly and then runs in an almost 180 degrees around the leading sharp left turn. In the fourth Round took place in this left-hander from contentious cause a clash of go-karts to the defendant and that of the moving front of her witnesses I, as a result kept by the defendant's go-kart collided head-on into the guardrail near the gate and was injured. Scope and amount of go-kart on the damage occurred is in dispute between the parties. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay due compensation and report the damage to their liability insurance. He initially presented at the 20.05.2011 an amount of 1,662.58 EUR including VAT in the invoice. With attorney letter dated 06.06.2011, he reduced his claim to the Net amount of 1,397.13 EUR and finally demanded an invoice dated 17.6.2011, at least the payment of an amount of 861.29 EUR plus 19% VAT, a total of 1,024.93 EUR. Because of the precise content of the invoice dated 17.06.2011 referred to page 6 of generality. A settlement of claims by the defendant by letter dated 05.07.2011 has been rejected. The plaintiff claimed that the hall supervision prior to the accident on the kart track next to one ofother drivers had noticed the defendant because of very aggressive driving. For this reason, the witness did T in the fourth Round of observation on the exterior of the door go to the driveway. After the observation, it might be come to the accident, that the defendant did not attempt just before the entrance hall, with high speed to overtake the car in front I left her witnesses. Here, the defendant with the go-kart against the left barrier is encountered. Your car has to be rotated, collided with the GoKart of the Lord and then I crashed into the front against the guard rail of the gate.The applicant considers that the defendant had caused the accident on the kart track by a grossly negligent driving errors. For you pass him was hopeless from the start. The plaintiff claimed that the accident broke the silent blocks of go-karts, bent the steering wheel column and the steering wheel and the cart frame and the complete protection of the go-karts were damaged. For the study conducted by his mechanic repairs he was guilty of material costs 465.93 EUR and must work 18 hours per 28.00 EUR and 55,00 EUR spend packaging and shipping costs. Here he takes one side of abstract a damage fee of 25.00 EUR.The plaintiff contends thatto condemn the defendant to pay the applicant an amount to the amount of 891.29 EUR plus 5% interest above the base rate since 07/13/2011.The defendant sought to dismiss the action. The defendant claims to have started on the evening in third position of the driver.After threeRounds without overtaking the witness I was overtaken by the other in front of her colleagues traveling Nbeen, so that the witness was because I moved from the position in front of her. In the fourth round it was retracted in the outer area on the right side into the last sharp left curve and a moving behind her GoKart been rammed from behind left, so that they had been pushed onto the vehicle of the witnesses I. Thus they have lost control of her go-kart and crashed into the fence on the right trail-side. They had no intention to overtake. The witness I had managed to catch his car again and dr[...]

compensation claims for accidents


This site is going to be about compensation claims for accidents, for which you may need legal advice.