Your insurance company will sort it out, fight and get the money from their insurance company. Let the insurance companies handle it.

This is an interesting thread and informative. I didn't know you can't go after exploding car's insurance because they're not responsible for collateral damage.

Call your insurance company about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the future I recommend getting better insurance.

It's the other car's insurance that is refusing to pay, seems like it's hard to arrange for better insurance for the dude who parks their exploding car next to yours in advance.

If you have decent insurance, your insurance pays and then goes after the other guy (or just eats the cost)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue.

Probably waste of time. How is OP going to prove negligence of the car owner? OP will have the burden of proof. There will be no discovery because it will be in district court or the equivalent. Just because the car caught on fire doesn’t mean there is negligence on the part of the owner. No attorney will take this on contingency.

Depending on OPs car, it may end up in a circuit court with discovery. The problem is that OP will need to find and pay an expert witness

If OP’s car was decent enough to hit the threshold for circuit court, they’d likely have comprehensive.

25k is the threshold in Virginia

Anonymous wrote:In the future I recommend getting better insurance.

It's the other car's insurance that is refusing to pay, seems like it's hard to arrange for better insurance for the dude who parks their exploding car next to yours in advance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, because both parties have liability coverage only and no one is deemed liable when a car catches on fire = no coverage?
I think that I understand better now.
From my personal perspective, if my property blows up and damages yours, I have a personal responsibility to help repair the damage. Obviously, this is not a universally shared perspective.

Your first sentence is exactly the reason why people buy comprehensive coverage.

As for the second part, insurance companies go by the law, not what makes you feel good. If they went by your feelings of how it should be, premiums would skyrocket because they would be paying out so much more in benefits.

My point was not that the insurance company should pay. (I now understand that it isn’t covered by their policy.) My point was that the OWNERS of the exploding vehicle have a responsibility to tend to the damage their property created.

Why? Because you assume they must bear some responsibility for the fire? What if the car next to OP’s caught fire because it was struck by lightening? What if someone else set it on fire as an act of vandalism? Why are those things the car owner’s fault? Isn’t it just as much OP’s fault for parking next to something that could catch fire?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, because both parties have liability coverage only and no one is deemed liable when a car catches on fire = no coverage?
I think that I understand better now.
From my personal perspective, if my property blows up and damages yours, I have a personal responsibility to help repair the damage. Obviously, this is not a universally shared perspective.

Your first sentence is exactly the reason why people buy comprehensive coverage.

As for the second part, insurance companies go by the law, not what makes you feel good. If they went by your feelings of how it should be, premiums would skyrocket because they would be paying out so much more in benefits.

My point was not that the insurance company should pay. (I now understand that it isn’t covered by their policy.) My point was that the OWNERS of the exploding vehicle have a responsibility to tend to the damage their property created.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why many states have no fault insurance.

Also, people have car insurance that doesn't cover their own car? This sounds like a very budget policy. If the OP hit me with her car, i'd love to see how much coverage they have. I'm guessing it is very low limits. And then i'm coming after the OP's personal assets....

people who have assets have comprehensive insurance. you'd be trying to get blood out of a turnip; even if you one they'd file bankruptcy and you'd still get nothing. at least everyone would know what a jerk you are, so I guess that's the one bright spot.

If people elect to get inadequate coverage, people who did them personally are not jerks. State minimums cover almost nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sue.

Probably waste of time. How is OP going to prove negligence of the car owner? OP will have the burden of proof. There will be no discovery because it will be in district court or the equivalent. Just because the car caught on fire doesn’t mean there is negligence on the part of the owner. No attorney will take this on contingency.

Depending on OPs car, it may end up in a circuit court with discovery. The problem is that OP will need to find and pay an expert witness

If OP’s car was decent enough to hit the threshold for circuit court, they’d likely have comprehensive.

Anonymous wrote:So, because both parties have liability coverage only and no one is deemed liable when a car catches on fire = no coverage?
I think that I understand better now.
From my personal perspective, if my property blows up and damages yours, I have a personal responsibility to help repair the damage. Obviously, this is not a universally shared perspective.

Liability coverage only comes into play if you are negligent. Ownership alone is not enough to trigger responsibility. For your insurance to cover your property you have to have insurance. Problem here is that OP had no coverage. So OP is on their own. I mean if you elect to help someone else out, I’m sure an injured person would be happy. But there is no legal responsibility without negligence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why many states have no fault insurance.

Also, people have car insurance that doesn't cover their own car? This sounds like a very budget policy. If the OP hit me with her car, i'd love to see how much coverage they have. I'm guessing it is very low limits. And then i'm coming after the OP's personal assets....

people who have assets have comprehensive insurance. you'd be trying to get blood out of a turnip; even if you one they'd file bankruptcy and you'd still get nothing. at least everyone would know what a jerk you are, so I guess that's the one bright spot.

DP. You seem to being confusing liability coverage with comprehensive coverage. Liability coverage is what pays for the other person’s damage and injuries if you cause an accident, and you are required by law to carry a certain amount of it. Comprehensive coverage is what pays for your own auto damage if it’s damaged through act of god stuff like a tree falling on your car or, in this case, it catching fire because something else nearby caught fire through an act of god.

Anonymous wrote:So, because both parties have liability coverage only and no one is deemed liable when a car catches on fire = no coverage?
I think that I understand better now.
From my personal perspective, if my property blows up and damages yours, I have a personal responsibility to help repair the damage. Obviously, this is not a universally shared perspective.

Your first sentence is exactly the reason why people buy comprehensive coverage.

As for the second part, insurance companies go by the law, not what makes you feel good. If they went by your feelings of how it should be, premiums would skyrocket because they would be paying out so much more in benefits.

Anonymous wrote:This is why many states have no fault insurance.

Also, people have car insurance that doesn't cover their own car? This sounds like a very budget policy. If the OP hit me with her car, i'd love to see how much coverage they have. I'm guessing it is very low limits. And then i'm coming after the OP's personal assets....

people who have assets have comprehensive insurance. you'd be trying to get blood out of a turnip; even if you one they'd file bankruptcy and you'd still get nothing. at least everyone would know what a jerk you are, so I guess that's the one bright spot.

So, because both parties have liability coverage only and no one is deemed liable when a car catches on fire = no coverage?
I think that I understand better now.
From my personal perspective, if my property blows up and damages yours, I have a personal responsibility to help repair the damage. Obviously, this is not a universally shared perspective.