Black ice

Monday evening I had a car accident due to black ice on the road. My car hit the top of a ditch, turned over twice and landed on the opposite side of the road. The car is totaled. however, due to the fact i had my seat belt on I was not injured severely. Just have contusion to my breast bone, my right shin and cuts, scratches from the seat belt. Thank god! Ambulance and police were called to the scene and i was taken to the hospital. My insurance has received all the information needed. What do i have to look forward to?

I am not sure what you are asking. Were you charged? And if you were, with what?

I was not charged with anything. No other vehicles were involved, thank God. I meant, what do i have to look forward to as far as my car issues. Will the car payments still have to be made or will the insurance cover the payments?

No, if the insurance company totalled out the car, you do not have to pay for it. However, you don't receive any money to BUY a new car. You will have to get another downpayment, and purchase another car, etc. However, if you owed much less on the car than it was worth, you may keep the difference, but I suspect they will just pay off the vehicle. Also, and this happened to me with a brand new car I hadn't made the first payment on yet, the insurance company ( other drivers 100% at fault) would only pay 90% of the cars value and I did not have "gap" insurance (not something most policies have, but is something you should buy separately). if you do not have gap insurance you may have to cover the cost between what the insurance company paid and what is still owed.
In my case, it became a moot point because the vehicle was in my husbands name only and he was killed in a work accident shortly after that time, before my accident lawsuit was settled. And that debt was part of his estate, and not my debt to pay, so repayment was not legally my responsibility. I did, however, collect as damages the higher cost of replacing the car. Example: car loan on the totaled car was less than thirty days old when it was totaled. So, when I attempted to purchase another new vehicile in thirty days, I had to pay a higher interest rate because according to them I had "just bought a car"---even though it was totaled and not my fault. So, while the car was identical, it cost more and was at a higher interest rate, so I included those cost in my lawsuit against the other driver. However, as I said, both of the vehicles belonged to my husband and after his death I sold the "second" one since it was part of his estate and became a bonafied CORVETTE gal. (the only good thing that happened in all of this!)
Contact your loan personnel and inform them that the car has been totaled and give them the insurance companies name and they will tell you what, if anything, they need from that point on.

Good luck--glad you are ok.

Hold on here, the insurance company is not insuring your lender, they are insuring you for the value of your car. If you had a large downpayment or have owned it for three years or more, you probably have a residual amount that the insurance company will have to pay to you... and you will be able to use it for a downpayment.

Skip the personal value assessment you've just been given. It is not going to be based on how her ex husband did business on his car, it is based on how YOU bought your car. Not everybody buys a car and pays for it in cash or uses a large downpayment to cut the monthly payment, but those who do would certainly hate to hear that they had nothing coming from their insurance company. Not everybody can understand that their own experience in this world is not appropriate as a guide for others.

At no time did I say HER experience paralled MINE. I was giving an example of how one such instance worked. Since the original poster did NOT SAY she made a large downpayment, nor did she say she had paid a large amount of the loan already, I did not assume. I simply gave an example, one in which she may or may not see a parallel.

I would suggest you reread my posting with a bit more diligence.

Allow me to quote from my previous posting: However, if you owed much less on the car than it was worth, you may keep the difference.

If she OWES less than the car is worth( meaning she DID use a big downpayment or she has been paying on it for some time, or some other possibility upon which I did not speculate since she did not specify ) then she WOULD get money back which is precisely what I stated, quoted again in RED above for your convenience.

Interestingly enough, what I said sounds a lot like YOUR point: If you had a large downpayment or have owned it for three years or more, you probably have a residual amount that the insurance company will have to pay to you... and you will be able to use it for a downpayment

The point I made and you disagreed with and restated was she DOES get money if the VALUE of the car is worth MORE than what she OWES, even though I did not in my personal situation. At no time did I say she would not or should not receive any money. And, in fact, my example provided for her another possibility if she does NOT receive money back (if the insurance only pays off the note and nothing more) since I pointed out it IS possible to recoup some of the money in damages ( as did I).

I was not cloning my situation upon hers. I was merely giving an example and offering possibilities about other ways to recoup on her loss if she does not have any money coming to her as a result of owing less than the value of the car, as I stated in my first posting.

And, while her insurance premiums are paid to insure her as the driver, the insurance is also protecting the collateral that belongs to the lien holder. If she has a lien, the car belongs to them until which time the title is transferred. This is precisely why every lien holder * requires* full coverage on the collateral---to protect not only the driver, but also their collateral. Virtually every vehicle loan contract includes language such as this (copied from one such lienholders contract) :

"To protect your loan, it is required that all loans maintain insurance above the state minimal liability coverage. All secured loan contracts require that collision and comprehensive coverage be maintained at all times to protect the loan in the event of theft, accident or damages."

Of course insurance protects the driver in the event of loss, injury or damage. But it is inaccurate to ignore the fact that insurance coverage, required by all lienholders is designed to protect the COLLATERAL.

At no time did I say "Your insurance is insuring your LENDER." It is, however, insuring the INTEREST of the LENDER----the COLLATERAL.

Appreciable difference.

And, not that it has any relevance to the posting whatsoever, but I wanted to clarify one thing because it is important to me. He isn't my EX husband. Because he is deceased does not mean he is my 'ex'. He is my husband. Death of a spouse does not negate a marriage contract. In the eyes of the law, for all legal purposes, he is still my husband and I am his widow. If he were my ex, I would not be a widow. I would simply be single. Again, interestingly enough, there is a legal difference between the two terms.