service vehicle demand by other party due to accident

**quiksie** · February 10th, 2007 10:19 AM

haha ayos itong thread na ito.

i always believe in free thought and speech as a means to better end, however. it seems as in politics, the exercise of such rights will be the beginning of end, unless such right was exercise in the taste and likeness of the inner circle and their protective comprador, then you are within the protective circle no matter what is the swing of tide.

ohmmm very sniky
(trying hard itong post na ito hehe)

**altec** · February 10th, 2007 02:39 PM

oldblue, the administrator's refusal to give info to (not from) the insurance is to delay the insurance as the insurance company is targetting to claim the amount involved from the subdivision. What happened was that the subdivision came up with an arrangement with the starex owner and the amount equivalent to the own damage participation claim plus part of the replacement part that can't be covered by the insurance policy, a quit claim was signed. If the owner turns around and does claim from the insurance, the subdivision is not privy anymore if he did or not (but obviously he did). The point here is that with the quit claim, the subdivision and the guard is supposed to be removed from any future claims.

Guys, I know there were fireworks that happened on this thread. The way I read it, it was a blow up of a figure that escalated to something undesirable. Let's keep to the topic at hand, thanks.

**orly_andico** · February 10th, 2007 08:26 PM

My useless 2c.

1) if the vehicle owner came to an agreement with the subdivision, and a quit claim was signed, this means the vehicle owner has to claim own damage. the quit claim specifically makes clear that the subdivision is not to blame. my understanding is that, if a quit claim is rendered, you should get a "new" police report which does not assign blame. if you cut a deal with the owner but didn't get that "revised" police report.. tough luck.

2) if there was no quit claim, and the vehicle owner has a police report assigning blame to the subdivision, and makes a claim against their insurance, then definitely their insurance will go after the subdivision. question is, whether they can extract money from the subdivision (it will eventually boil down to them sending a collection agency to harass the subdivision admin).

**tsupermario** · February 10th, 2007 08:44 PM

i think the really most important question that must be answered here is: who was at fault at the time of the accident?

**oldblue** · February 11th, 2007 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by tsupermario

i think the really most important question that must be answered here is: who was at fault at the time of the accident?

sir nagpapatawa ka naman eh, baka makulitan ng mga posters kung babalikan ulit yun fateful day na yun. hehehe.

**tsupermario** · February 11th, 2007 08:51 AM

^ sir, the question is really for the threadstarter.

**niky** · February 11th, 2007 02:09 PM

(Sorry for the Off-Topic) [size=1]RE: CS: Anonas, only a few times. Never could get a hang of it on their speedball maps and crappy mouses... Home base was in Laguna. Our group was more into tactical assault and subterfuge. Proudest moment was taking out ten AWP-equipped snipers with a machine-gun. Or was it eliminating a five-man assault team with an MP5 and five health?

I may not be the best shot, but I run really, really fast... can't bunny hop, though.[/size]

RE: Quitclaim... bwisit! Can't you pick up the lawyer and go over to them to have it notarized? Or is it too late?

RE: Fault: It's actually a moot point, now, as the Quitclaim was supposed to make it a no-fault incident. But if Malayan does take the subdivision to task for the incident, they have a good chance of digging the money out of them simply because of the fact that the guard had no license at the time...

Does the association have the funds to cover it? Can you still negotiate with the guy's wife to fix the quitclaim? And again, either the association or the security agency should force the guards to get their licenses... it's not that painful, and it'll save you these problems next time.

And there's another question... are your guards direct-hire or through an agency? Shouldn't it be the agency covering the claim?

**altec** · February 14th, 2007 02:08 PM

the guards are through the agency. But in such cases, the driver is criminally liable as well as civilly, but if ever di niya mabayaran, then the car owner becomes civilly liable as well. The motorcycle is registered under the subdivision.

Tanong ko pa kung napa notarized na ang quit claim. There is also an affidavit signed by the couple which states nagbanggaan sila sa intersection, but doesn't mention at all who was at fault. There is no police report, only a baranggay report, which reports the side of the couple, and claims the motorcycle is supposedly at fault, but according to their narration. It will conflict with what the affidavit says.