My 19yo nephew was at fault and uninsured in an auto accident. He received a bill for $54k from the opposing insurance company.

Submitted by MyFreeAccount t3_z8jaxe in personalfinance

So, my nephew totaled a Volkswagen Jetta in his mother and grandmothers' names. He was at fault. He had recently been removed from the insurance because he had moved to another state. This happened in California as he was visiting. The insurance company for the Mercedes Benz Sprinter he hit just sent him a bill for $54k. What can the kid do? Also, since the VW was in his relatives' names, it seems likely that the insurance company will go after the owners of the car... his mother and grandmother. What can be done?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

InteriorAttack t1_iybw0rp wrote

> What can the kid do?

Adult. Driving illegally. Prepare to be sued

74

27Believe t1_iycrah5 wrote

How was he driving illegally if he had a valid license and the car was insured ? Insurance is on the vehicle, not the driver

23

NoFilterNoLimits t1_iycwc2r wrote

This. When a friend wrecked my car, my insurance paid because I insured the car. It wasnt relevant to my insurance company that my sober friend was driving my drunk ass home

12

MikeWPhilly t1_iycxs9a wrote

Yeah it sounds like the OP isn’t aware his family had no insurance not the kid.

7

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd4o22 wrote

The car was insured... liability only.

2

Any-Yoghurt9249 t1_iyd7zwz wrote

liability only is for damage you cause - so wouldn't this be covered? If he had moved it makes sense to take him off the policy, I believe you only need someone on the policy if they live with you and/or drive the vehicle at least occasionally.

8

halifire t1_iydoy3a wrote

Auto insurance is very state-specific. I'm not familiar with CA's laws but in my state your insurance covers occasional use by parties not included in your policy. One exception to this is if the person who was driving lived in your home and was not added to the policy. If the nephew had a left the state then the policy might cover this accident but the insurance company might think that the nephew still lived with them thus denying the claim. At this point attorneys really need to get involved.

2

My_soliloquy t1_iybwcql wrote

Learning moment, you do need insurance if you choose to drive, too bad he didn't learn from others mistakes.

19

freedom_or_bust t1_iyd9x8r wrote

How is he driving illegally if he's licensed and has permission?

4

Cautious_General_177 t1_iydmrdq wrote

In most states you’re required to also have insurance to drive.

1

itsdan159 t1_iydrlie wrote

In most states occasional drivers are covered by the owner's policy

3

CircaSixty8 t1_iybwq1e wrote

He was removed from the insurance because he was going to be moving? That doesn't make any sense. Why would they let him drive a vehicle if he wasn't insured? Of course they're going to come after the insured parties. What can be done? I don't even understand the question actually.

37

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iybx61e wrote

He had already moved. This happened while on a return visit. The question is... what can be done for the best outcome, taking into consideration the facts...

−16

CircaSixty8 t1_iybxk9v wrote

Car insurance covers the car, not so much the driver. The mother and grandmother should file a claim with their car insurance. Their premium may go up, but relatively speaking, this is not a huge deal.

22

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iybybak wrote

The mother's insurance company claims that the accident is not covered.

2

CircaSixty8 t1_iyc1cvn wrote

Why did you leave that out of the original post?!

What else did you leave out? Did the kid not have a license?

Anyway, the only thing they can do is file an appeal. They may need to get a lawyer.

31

mom2angelsx3 t1_iydle9r wrote

Sounds like he was not only removed but also listed as an excluded driver, that would be the only was I see that the accident would not be covered.

3

[deleted] t1_iycxpnc wrote

[removed]

−19

[deleted] t1_iydgp6j wrote

Not with kids. Usually they sign an exclusion clause because the risk is so high to get rates lowered

1

CircaSixty8 t1_iydjbj8 wrote

If the kid was "excluded from the insurance" OP should have said that.

3

[deleted] t1_iyd2gvt wrote

I assume what happened is that he was on the insurance as a resident of the household and regular driver. When he moved, he was taken off the insurance. However, when visiting, and with permission to drive, he's still covered by whoever is insuring the car. The exception is if he was specifically barred from driving it by the policy, which is rare but does happen on occasion.

9

itsdan159 t1_iydf6xg wrote

This, though I think it can vary by state my understanding is in most lending your car to someone occasionally will still carry your policy's protection.

2

Logic_Delivery t1_iye1csj wrote

Ok after reading through all your comments and trying to piece things together - this is where I'm at

  1. The Jetta is registered to the Mom/Grandma but was primarily driven by the nephew before he moved and insured as such

  2. When he moved, the car wasn't going to be used an coverage was reduced to the minimum and his name was removed as primary driver. It may have had liability insurance, but sometimes people choose an absurdly low limit (looks like CA is $5k minimum). To be helpful, we need more details on the exact coverage on the vehicle

  3. It sounds like your nephew being the driver might be irrelevant UNLESS he was specifically excluded from the policy, but that doesn't sound like its the case.

  4. My guess is that the property damage limit was just extremely low and he totaled a Sprinter, which when new can easily push $60-70K with options. A $5k limit (the state minimum) and being unfortunate enough to hit a nearly new van would explain the bill he received.

  5. There isn't much to be done if the above is true. I assume insurance also didn't cover the Jetta if it was liability only. Simply put, your nephew causes north of $60k in damages that he or the family will be sued for.

3

Askew-glasses t1_iyd1ej8 wrote

His finding a way to pay it.

Otherwise, it's going to hit his mother and grandmother, because their names are listed on the policy.

2

peter303_ t1_iycab8f wrote

Most policies give you 30 days to update policy upon moving. Insurance costs could be rather different in new location.

1

ste1071d t1_iychx85 wrote

Insurance follows the car, not the driver. You can loan your car out to someone and it’s insured even though the driver not on the insurance.

You are leaving out key details.

If we finally have this right - the Jetta’s title lists mom, grandma, NOT nephew. The nephew was taken off the insurance. The car wasn’t being driven so someone reduced coverage to the bare minimum in your state. Do we have that right now?

14

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd5gy6 wrote

That is correct.

2

ste1071d t1_iyd6c7q wrote

So the issue is not that it’s not covered. It’s that the coverage on the vehicle is insufficient for the damage he caused. Unfortunately he should expect to be sued.

14

InsuranceMD123 t1_iyd68zh wrote

Ok, sounds like you need to let the insurance company that insures the Volkswagen of the claim. They may very well cover the liability portion up to the policy limits, under permissive use. Depends on if the driver was removed, or excluded, but if removed as you say, you guys need to file a claim so they can get involved.

3

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd7eu6 wrote

They know of the accident and don't want to cover the other car. We don't expect them to cover the VW.

3

InsuranceMD123 t1_iyd7niu wrote

Why won't they cover the liability portion of the claim? Because your nephew was not on the policy? Sounds like permissive use, but every company can be different. Have they given a reason as to why they are denying liability?

3

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iydaye0 wrote

They say that they won't cover it because he was removed from the policy about two months previous to the accident.

2

halifire t1_iydp88o wrote

Have you provided them proof that he moved out and no longer lives in the state? They might be assuming or suspecting that he is still living with you. If they are aware of this then you're going to need to hire an attorney to sort this out.

5

ste1071d t1_iydovwk wrote

Which address is the nephew’s address of record?

3

itsdan159 t1_iydru7n wrote

Ask them if that means they don't cover occasional drivers then, because that would be unusual. Unless he wasn't just removed by specifically excluded from coverage, which would be even more unusual.

1

therestarefake t1_iyee63f wrote

Was he excluded from the policy for poor driving or driving under the influence? Or was he removed as a regular vehicle driver by the owner of the car? Two different things. The first means if he drove the vehicle the owners should know he won't be covered and they ( and he) will be sued. The second should still cover him under a standard liability insurance policy because the vehicle is insured, not the driver. It will not, however, cover the vehicle he was driving.

1

fatFire_TA t1_iyc7t0i wrote

Look, did the car have insurance or not? If no, then the driver and/or the owner of the car owes $54k. That's it.

He wasn't living at home - so him not being listed on the insurance isn't an issue, but if he's driving a car that itself isn't insured. Well shit, $54k lesson.

12

Askew-glasses t1_iyd2etg wrote

Some insurance companies will refuse to cover an accident if the driver of the car isn't on their list. It depends on the policy you purchase.

>What else should drivers without a car or car insurance consider?
If you're a licensed driver who doesn't own a vehicle, you likely don't have a need for a long-term car insurance policy. But, what should you do if you need to temporarily borrow someone else's car? Here are some points to keep in mind:
The car owner's insurance policy may help provide coverage if you get into an accident.
>
>
You may be responsible for certain types of damage, depending on the coverages the owner's car insurance policy includes. For instance, if their policy doesn't include collision coverage, you may have to pay for the repairs to their car if you cause an accident.

>
>You may be responsible for costs that exceed the coverage limits on the owner's car insurance policy.

>
>If you're planning to lend your car to a friend or family member, or borrow one from someone else, remember that it's a good idea to review both of your insurance policies first. Your insurance provider can also help answer any questions about your policy before you decide whether lending your car makes sense for you.

Source.

4

Coronator t1_iyd4yfy wrote

This is good information, however I’ve never seen a policy not cover liability in this case. They might night cover their own car, but if they carried insurance, there is no reason it shouldn’t cover the other vehicle (unless their liability limits were too low, which is certainly a possibility).

2

fatFire_TA t1_iye14u7 wrote

Exactly, the liability portion of an insurance policy should always follow the car as the *owner* of the car is liable no matter whom is driving.

1

HSdropout42069 t1_iybxpms wrote

I am not in the insurance industry but do work in the auto Industry and deal with insurance more than most. If she had CA issued insurance, then the damages to the other party would be covered by her liability coverage, no matter who was driving. Any medical attention to himself or to the vehicle being drive would be covered under a comprehensive policy to the limits that are listed on the policy. This can be found on the declaration page of the policy. If he is unlicensed he could be excluded from coverage.

7

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyby1h5 wrote

He is and was licensed, just not specifically covered on the insurance since a few months previous.

2

HSdropout42069 t1_iybypcr wrote

Then he should’ve been covered so long as your mom and grandma had insurance on the vehicle. If the bill is from the insurance company maybe you guys should contact an attorney for some advice on what the options are.

11

Masterillya t1_iyc2g8f wrote

Sounds like because he was leaving to make insurance cheaper they “Excluded” him from the coverage, so it is not covered

5

27Believe t1_iyd1t30 wrote

Removing someone who doesn’t live in the household or regularly drive the car, what’s the issue ?

2

itsdan159 t1_iyds5n5 wrote

If the person was excluded specifically, not just not on the insurance but excluded from it, it might not be covered. This can be done sometimes if you have a high risk driver in the household making the rates go up for others. It could be the result if someone on either end misunderstanding what was being asked when removing the driver.

1

Askew-glasses t1_iyd2rk1 wrote

They should have checked their policy before tossing the keys to an unlisted driver.

−1

izziefans t1_iybxkff wrote

Do you have to have people on car insurance? If I loan my car to my friends, they don’t have to have their own insurance for driving my car. My car needs to be insured (by me). They just need their license to drive.

5

alwayzforu t1_iybwhzw wrote

Safe to say Grandma and Mom won't be too happy. They'll most likely have to foot the bill.

4

hopingtothrive t1_iybwxrr wrote

If the mother's car was insured any one she loans the car to is also insured. The insurance follows the car, not the driver. Mother's insurance needs to handle this.

My daughter totaled my car. My car was insured and Allstate paid. I loaned my car to my daughter, which is totally fine.

4

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iybxoh7 wrote

The car was only covered with liability insurance, since it was not being driven because he was out-of-state. The mother's insurance company argues that he is not covered.

4

LeCordonB1eu t1_iybzxf9 wrote

So I feel like the information you're sharing is very inconsistent with each of the comments. In your original post, you made it sound like the car was under operation by the mother/grandmother and that it was in good standings in terms of insurance except that your niece was no longer on there. If the car was being stored and not operated, and only had enough insurance to protect it in its parked place, then it is no surprise that the insurance company is not willing to cover for the damages that was caused while in operation.

19

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd7sn6 wrote

The car was parked while he was gone. It was insured... liabilty. I never mentioned anything about a niece.

−2

MikeWPhilly t1_iycyl4n wrote

Was the son out of state with the car in his new location? Sorry but nobody is going to be able to help you if you don’t give the full story. If you loan a car to a friend and they crash it the car is covered by your insurance. Insurance covers the car. From all your posts either the mother is not giving you the full story or you are not giving us all the pertinent details. Insurance will try and cut corners and they may push back on some claims but for them to outright deny like this - suggests critical details are missing.

3

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd631u wrote

The car was left in CA, parked and not being driven. He drove it when he returned for a visit.

0

MikeWPhilly t1_iyd72p2 wrote

So filling in the blanks is this essentially the car was in California where the son lived and the mother lives in a different state? or does the mother live in cali and it was parked in her driveway and he drove it then while there? The first option the insurance is probably saying it was the kids car, with him in cali where he is living and you weren’t properly insured.

The second option though doesn’t make sense and the insurance company would have to give a reason to deny the claim. My guess is it’s the first but the context still isn’t very clear.

Edit - read some of your other comments. The son was home for a month? Why was he home? Had he just left school and/or moved in temporarily? It sounds like they he was home for a very long period of time and the insurance company was trying to say he was a household member. A household member that you removed to lower costs. So this seems to be the rub but not enough detail on why he was home, how long etc..

2

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iydbl4f wrote

They both lived in CA. The nephew went to another state for 6 months. He returned to CA for about a month or so, when the accident happened. He was likely to stay in CA after the visit, but it wasn't a sure thing.

1

MikeWPhilly t1_iydf2pp wrote

Yeah this is likely the issue. So the son had no other residence other than the home in CA at that point? If so he’s screwed. You basically had somebody who technically lived there (based off yoru comment he was staying I assume he had no apartment in the other state anymore) and you never updated the insurance for the household.

3

halifire t1_iydx7qv wrote

This sounds like the correct reasoning. There's a good chance this kid is considered a household member and should have been added back to the policy shortly after returning home. There's a good chance insurance won't pay for this.

3

roox911 t1_iyd88vu wrote

Liability insurance is literally what covers the accident. The 54k bill is the Liability.

It won't cover the damage to their vv or his injuries, but it covers the van and is occupants. That's the point of it.

2

theoriginalharbinger t1_iychpz8 wrote

Nope. Kid might have been a named exclusion on the policy (common) or parents could be running California minimums (5k property only).

There's lots of ways current or former household members could end up not covered.

4

SueSudio t1_iybxcty wrote

Insurance rates are typically much higher for people under 25. If the driver doesn't matter why would anyone disclose a junior driver to their insurance company?

3

LeCordonB1eu t1_iybzl2c wrote

Because the insurance companies usually knows who is living in the household. Living in the household together means more likelihood of driving the vehicle, so the insurance companies usually ask you to either include them in your insurance or for a written statement that they would not drive the vehicle.

11

SueSudio t1_iyct3w9 wrote

Exactly, but the previous statement says that it doesn't matter who is driving the car,.

−1

LeCordonB1eu t1_iycukx2 wrote

And that is true as well. Anyone can drive your car, given that they have a license. That's what being vehicle insured means...

There are cases where the insurance follows the driver, but it's just more common to see insurances that stay with the designated vehicle. In the case of the latter, a homeless you just ran into could drive your car with permission and would still be covered by the insurance.

2

SueSudio t1_iycv0ob wrote

Then why is any driver information relevant to the car insurance other than "who is paying"?

1

LeCordonB1eu t1_iyczoj0 wrote

The only driver information that the insurance companies ask for is for those that live in your household. I already went over this in my above comment.

2

Anonymous5922 t1_iybwzt3 wrote

"What can be done?"

It's simple, he can pay for the damages he caused.

4

decaturbob t1_iycjim4 wrote

  • the bill will be brought against the OWNER of the vehicle as they have the ultimate responsibility. Their insurer will not cover so the owners will be sued in civil court for the damages
3

debbiewith2 t1_iycp1be wrote

So, the VW had only liability insurance and he was literally listed as an excluded driver?

3

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd58r7 wrote

He was previously on the insurance when he was living in CA, then he moved... and was removed, as the car was parked and not driven. It was his car, in his relatives' names.

1

debbiewith2 t1_iyf1xbp wrote

We don’t understand what you mean by “removed.” The car was removed from the policy? The nephew was listed as an excluded driver? The nephew was no longer listed as a member of the household? Those are all very different.

1

debbiewith2 t1_iyf2j4k wrote

Now I finally see where you give the important information!! He lived at their home in California at the time of the accident and no one told the insurance company!! That’s the only issue that’s important.

0

peter303_ t1_iyca8ay wrote

Typically one has a 30 day grace period to update insurance to continue coverage in a new location. The premium could change to reflect the new location.

In my location 20% of vehicles are not properly registered because my state charges a huge registration fee of 2.5% percent of vehicle value. These people are in for a surprise if they have an accident. I am covered by uninsured motorist for this reason.

2

theoriginalharbinger t1_iychxmn wrote

Drop the "in so and sos name" affectation.

  • Who owns the car

  • Who is the car registered to

  • Who is the named insured

  • how long ago did he move out

  • was he still considered a household member

  • was he a named exclusion on the policy

Most likely: cough up money and prepare to be sued.

2

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd5so5 wrote

Who owns the car: mother and grandmother

Who is the car registered to: mother

Who is the named insured: mother

how long ago did he move out: 6 months

was he still considered a household member: he had returned home for a month or so

was he a named exclusion on the policy: he wasn't specifically excluded, just removed as a result of the high cost

5

theoriginalharbinger t1_iyecapw wrote

Yeah, so chances are - and you should ignore everyone upthread saying "He should be covered!" because that isn't how it works - there is a requirement that all members of the household be either named as included drivers or specifically excluded.

This is done so that Sober Jane can't just get insurance for herself, and then toss the keys to her spouse, Drunken Bob With 3 DUI's, whenever he wants to drive. If somebody is a member of the household, there is specific treatment for that household member. That they "removed" him likely means that he is now specifically excluded as he is a member of the household.

Even if they do elect to cover him, you'd want to see what the property damage limits on the policy are. California is (drumroll) 5k property damage minimums. So even if they do have a policy in effect, it might be very very limited.

2

27Believe t1_iyej143 wrote

Well it took til now for op to say he returned for a month! All that was said before was he moved out !

4

theoriginalharbinger t1_iyejahz wrote

Yeah, I'm thinking of writing an FAQ on "How to ask a question."

Chronology is important and that's not a mundane detail.

3

6thsense10 t1_iyclf6t wrote

I thought the damages would still be covered by the owner's insurance. I mean people lend their cars to friends and family who aren't in their insurance quite often so this isn't exactly a case that's never occurred before. In the past I have had to drive people home from the bar in their cars after they've had too much to drink. If I know I would be liable in case of an accident I would hesitate doing that going forward. Probably find another way to help.

2

Imaginary_Shelter_37 t1_iycu86x wrote

Some policies don't cover drivers under age 25 unless they are listed on the policy as a driver.

3

limestone_tiger t1_iyclsti wrote

>What can the kid do?

For one thing - he's an adult. Learn a lesson - it's best to be insured. He gambled and lost.

2

27Believe t1_iycqxjk wrote

Drivers aren’t insured. The vehicles are. If someone doesn’t own a car, they do not have insurance

1

JazzyJazzJaxx t1_iyd1832 wrote

You don’t have to own the car to have insurance, you can be added on as an authorized driver which was the case before they decided to remove him

−2

27Believe t1_iyd1dsz wrote

Why would he be an authorized driver ? He doesn’t live there or use the car regularly. If I have a friend visiting and she asks to borrow my car, I don’t add her as a driver.

1

JazzyJazzJaxx t1_iyd2fhv wrote

“If someone doesn’t own a car, they do not have insurance” that statement was incorrect and I addressed that. Yes you wouldn’t add your friend to your insurance if they’re just borrowing your car but that’s not what my initial comment was referring to.

−1

27Believe t1_iyd4rhk wrote

So what auto insurance would someone who doesn’t own a car have? And why would someone who doesn’t live there or use the car regularly be on the owners insurance ?

0

hopingtothrive t1_iydbr17 wrote

It was the owner of the car that gambled. They had insufficient coverage and loaned their car to a 19 year old.

1

TN_REDDIT t1_iycmg8f wrote

Mom's insurance company has a team of lawyer's, and they said they are not covering the damages.

I hate to break it to ya, but since the driver did not steal the car (owner gave him permission to drive), the driver will have to pay and the other insurance company may also sue the car owner (they are going to want to be reimbursed).

2

Badroadrash101 t1_iycuil6 wrote

Get ready to see mom and grandma getting sued as they are the legal owners of the vehicle that was underinsured. They allowed an unlicensed driver to operate the vehicle, which invalidated the coverage of the insurance which is probably why the insurance company won’t provide coverage.

2

27Believe t1_iyd1m64 wrote

Where do you see that he didn’t have a license ?

1

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd6l1i wrote

Indeed, he was licensed, just not specifically named on the insurance any longer.

1

27Believe t1_iyd8qwf wrote

So what is the reason they are giving that they (insurance co) won’t take care of it ? Do they not believe he relocated and was truly out of the house ?

1

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iydflfo wrote

They are saying that since he was removed, he was not covered.

1

mom2angelsx3 t1_iydn5nm wrote

He was removed because he moved but then moved back in & should have been re-added to the policy which would have increased the costs so, it was not done?

3

27Believe t1_iydvbd0 wrote

Where does it say he moved back in ? It says he was visiting.

1

MikeWPhilly t1_iydyg8a wrote

Did he have a residence else where? From your posts on my other comments he did not. You also said he was in CA at his parents for over his month. He was living there and you are probably screwed because of that to be honest. Unless you can show he had a residence with mail else where?

1

mom2angelsx3 t1_iyeb35y wrote

Visiting for more than a month & may be staying indefinitely, if he has a lease or permanent address elsewhere established they may have a leg to stand on but otherwise, owner of vehicle on the hook for damages.

1

27Believe t1_iyej2pv wrote

Yeah she didn’t say that til way later on!

1

27Believe t1_iyej5vd wrote

I didn’t see that til now. A month is back.

1

mom2angelsx3 t1_iydnjig wrote

Maybe there was only state minimum property damage liability which is $5k of the $54k in damages if dana fee were going to be covered? So owner of the vehicle would still be liable for $49k of the $54k even if insurance would pay out.

2

Coronator t1_iye1t5h wrote

I’d say this is exactly what happened - the argument of whether or not insurance is covering this person or not is a red herring. It sounds like the family reduced coverage to mandatory minimums, and there is not enough property liability to cover the damages.

2

DACAmentedLawyer t1_iybzeiv wrote

Pay a consultation fee for an attorney. Insurance companies tend to avoid payouts if at all possible and they don't play fair. If he wasn't living at home, he should be covered under the car's insurance. They probably don't believe that he is not living at home. Best bet is definitely paying an attorney to handle this.

1

Askew-glasses t1_iyd3d64 wrote

It depends on the policy as to whether or not unlisted drivers are covered.

1

[deleted] t1_iyc4zpw wrote

[removed]

1

antoniosrevenge t1_iyf6jyf wrote

Please note that in order to keep this subreddit a high-quality place to discuss personal finance, off-topic or low-quality comments are removed (rule 3).

We look forward to higher quality posts from your account in the future. Thank you.

1

MyFreeAccount OP t1_iyd73l8 wrote

UPDATE: The car was his while he was in CA. He was driving it daily. When he left CA, the car was parked and the insurance was minimized as no one would be driving it. When he returned to CA, he began to again drive the car, although the insurance was not updated reflecting his daily driving. It only had liability coverage. This is when the accident occurred.

1

MinistryofTruthAgent t1_iyezu0f wrote

What company? I have a policy with a major National insurer. They typically cover as long as mom and grandma gave permission.

1

debbiewith2 t1_iyf2cmj wrote

The part you’re leaving out is that he LIVED in California in their home and was not listed as a household member!!!!

1

SPhillyjew t1_iyd99nk wrote

How was he driving illegally if he had a valid license and the car was insured ? Insurance is on the vehicle, not the driver

1

insomniacmomof3 t1_iydaohz wrote

Oh my! This is very sad and a case of very costly “savings.” Seems like it might be worth it to get an attorney who specializes in insurance cases to see if they can negotiate coverage, less debt or a payment plan. Sad to see poor nephew saddled with all of this debt. I wish your family good luck!

1

StudMuffen420 t1_iydooao wrote

Just wait, next they’ll take his license if he doesn’t pay

File bankruptcy or threaten too are your options. You need to find out how much you’re willing to fork over and have a lawyer draft a letter saying you’re willing to settle for xx amount is all you can do otherwise you’ll will have to peruse bankruptcy.

They’ll bite. I’ve seen this done first hand they will take what they can get rather than nothing

1