Other driver was clearly at fault — anyone want to guess what coverage he actually has?
So I got hit pretty badly last week. The other driver blew through a stop sign and T-boned me on the driver's side. Police came, wrote him up, no ambiguity about fault whatsoever. My car is almost certainly a total loss — it was basically new, which stings extra.
I already reached out to an attorney and things are moving, so I'm not looking for formal advice here. I'm just... sitting with the uncertainty and could use some distraction.
Here's what's rattling around in my head: the other driver looked like he was well into his 70s, driving a pretty beat-up older compact — I mean, the thing had rust patches and a cracked tail light before the crash. That kind of makes me nervous that he's just carrying whatever the state minimum is, which in my state is pretty laughable coverage.
On the flip side, some people told me older retired folks sometimes actually carry better coverage because they've owned homes, have assets to protect, maybe even have an umbrella policy. And some insurers reportedly push higher limits on older drivers. Who knows.
I know nobody here can actually tell me what his policy says — I get that. I'm just curious what your gut says. Does a 70-something driving a rusty old beater scream bare minimum to you, or does age sometimes correlate with more responsible coverage?
I'll find out eventually through the process, I just hate sitting in the dark. Anyone been through something similar and want to take a swing at it? No pressure, I won't hold you to anything. 😅