This is bullshit!

[D. Scarlatti]

This (http://blogs.jsonline.com/ortiz/archive/2007/08/15/evil-parking-checkers.aspx) is ridiculous.

I wasn't aware of it, but apparently you can get a ticket for expired plates <i>even when the vehicle is parked in a private, underground lot</i>.

(You have to read the comments too.)

But the municipal ordinance requires that the vehicle be parked on a "public right of way," which is, I think, how she can beat the ticket. "Gary" thinks otherwise, and I'm hoping he'll return to either cite me some caselaw, or else say, "Whatever. Then it'll cost her several hundred dollars to beat a 50 dollar ticket."

To which I'll get to reply, "Well hey, this is a singles blog, so there just might be a single lawyer here looking for some 'pro bono' work, if you know what I'm sayin.'"

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Just by way of constructive criticism, in a day and age like ours, a thread title like "This is bullshit!" really fails to nab the reader. ;)

[D. Scarlatti]

Well if I told the truth it would be "This is manifestly inconsequential."

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Well if I told the truth it would be "This is manifestly inconsequential."

True, but witness the whole Paris Hilton thing. There'd be a bazillion hits on the thread and offers of an interview on the nightly news already!

[Freddy]

This ticket should be contested. First, it should be brought before the municipal parking authority. If that fails contest the ticket in court. Private property, in this case a rented space, should be protected. Once the vehicle moves to a public way then the law has been broken.

At my condominium complex all vehicles parked in designated condominium spaces must be registered or daily fines will be assessed to the owner. The police have no authority until that vehicle moves on to the street, which is private also. Unauthorized vehicles parked on condominium property may be towed at the owner's expense as long as a sign is posted and the police are notified that a vehicle is being towed. License plate number, make and model, and towing company must be provided to police.

[D. Scarlatti]

At my condominium complex all vehicles parked in designated condominium spaces must be registered or daily fines will be assessed to the owner.

Registered with the condo association you mean, right?

[Stephen Maturin]

"Gary" thinks otherwise . . . .

Based on an admittedly high-speed, low-altitude review of the municipal traffic code, I tend to disagree.

We're more than a little hamstrung by the fact that Vikki didn't state with specificity the violation for which she was ticketed, but we can assume that it was all about the expired registration.

Section 101-24.7(2) provides that "[n]o unregistered motor vehicle may be located upon any alley,street, highway, public way or thoroughfare within the city." To emphasize the location thing, Section 101-24.7(1) defines "unregistered motor vehicle" as "any motor vehicle that is located upon any alley, street, highway, public way or thoroughfare and that is not displaying valid registration . . . for the vehicle’s current registration period or for a registration period for the vehicle that expired within the immediately preceding 31 days."

Unless there's another code section that applies, I don't see the offense. Seems to me the car wasn't an "unregistered motor vehicle" for two reasons. First, it wasn't located on an alley, street, etc. The section at issue doesn't prohibit "locat[ing]" a car with expired tags in a private parking garage. Second, if I'm reading the article right, she had "valid registration . . . for a registration period . . . that expired within the immediately preceding 31 days."

But hey, it could always be worse. I had a client back in Ohio who got a notice in the mail from the BMV demanding that he produce proof of insurance for a pickup truck that had been up on blocks behind his garage for three years with the engine and transmission torn out. Dude ignored the letter and got a second notice six weeks later stating that his driver's license was suspended for noncompliance with the Financial Responsibility Act. Took weeks to straighten that shit out.

[D. Scarlatti]

Section 101-24.7 ...

You got 'er, Pontiac.

[Also] she had "valid registration . . . for a registration period . . . that expired within the immediately preceding 31 days."

Preeeezactly. Expired registration is still registration.

Took weeks to straighten that shit out.

That's why you get paid the big bucks!

[Dingfod]

Here in Oklahoma you're supposed to "black tag" inoperable vehicles. The cost is minimal; they issue you a black sticker to apply to the license tag, which would mean to any law enforcement officer that vehicle is not licensed for the street. When a vehicle is "black tagged", liability insurance is not required.

[Freddy]

At my condominium complex all vehicles parked in designated condominium spaces must be registered or daily fines will be assessed to the owner.

Registered with the condo association you mean, right?
Our condo docs are explicit in that all vehicles on Trust property are MA registered, which in theory means they are insured. Spaces are assigned by need up to 2 per unit, but they are owned by the Trust and owners only have exclusive use. With just 6 units it is fairly easy to keep track of vehicles on the lot. Commercial vehicles are not allowed.

[D. Scarlatti]

Some of these condo associations sound like fascist regimes.

In the meantime "Gary" conceded the game but I'm left without the opportunity to use my clever "pro bono" line.

[Freddy]

Some of these condo associations sound like fascist regimes.
Liability is big with condo insurance companies not wanting to pay off if an uninsured car catches fire and causes damage to condo property or unit owners' vehicles. If the Trust was aware and failed to take action,i.e., towing the vehicle from the lot, the insurance company may not pay any damages. These condo doc rules are standard and are written by lawyers. We just had a problem where a unit owner took the plates off of one vehicle and put them on another and left the unregistered vehicle in the space. This forced me to send out a letter stating the specific violation of condo rules and the action that the Trust would take if the vehicle was not registered or moved immediately. It was gone in 24 hours. Statistics show 90% of condo owners fail to read their condo docs. Then when they break the rules they are surprised and say, "I did not know".

[Adam]

Liability is big with condo insurance companies not wanting to pay off if an uninsured car catches fire and causes damage to condo property or unit owners' vehicles.

Dumb question...who pays if an insured vehicle spontaneously catches fire and burns down the condo?

[Freddy]

Liability is big with condo insurance companies not wanting to pay off if an uninsured car catches fire and causes damage to condo property or unit owners' vehicles.

Dumb question...who pays if an insured vehicle spontaneously catches fire and burns down the condo?
The condos' master liability policy would pay as long as there was not a known problem that the Trust was aware of. A vehicle without plates is likely to be uninsured.

[Adam]

That doesn't make sense to me. If insuring the vehicle doesn't actually make someone else (i.e. whoever provides the vehicle insurance) responsible for damages to the condo, then I don't understand why the condo's insurer cares whether or not the vehicle is insured. Are uninsured vehicles a greater fire hazard, statistically speaking?

[Freddy]

That doesn't make sense to me. If insuring the vehicle doesn't actually make someone else (i.e. whoever provides the vehicle insurance) responsible for damages to the condo, then I don't understand why the condo's insurer cares whether or not the vehicle is insured. Are uninsured vehicles a greater fire hazard, statistically speaking?
Think money! If an insurance company can avoid covering a loss they will. Condos are ripe with this. Owners' policies and master policies sometimes conflict as to whom is responsible. If condo docs stipulate a rule and the Trust is aware of it being broken it is in the Trust's interest to do everything it can to fix the problem.

There was a water damage claim when a third floor unit owner caused water damage to the 2nd floor unit below it. This was not a leak or burst pipe, it was the owner/plumber not shutting off the water before working on his bathroom fixtures. Neither the condo's insurer or the two owners' insurers would pay the claim, with the former claiming it was human error and the latter two claiming human error and that the negligent 3rd floor owner was responsible. Why bother to have insurance? The third floor owner paid to have the damage repaired after the 2nd floor owner threatened a lawsuit.

[Adam]

I was thinking money! I was just being charitable and trying to find some way that it wasn't a case of the insurance company finding some arbitrary reason not to pay claims!

[Crumb]

I believe insurance companies have people working for them who get bonuses for getting out of paying claims.

[Ensign Steve]

Just by way of constructive criticism, in a day and age like ours, a thread title like "This is bullshit!" really fails to nab the reader. ;)

That is bullshit.

Every time I see that thread title in the index, I'm like "oooh! juicy!" Then I remember it's some boring lawyer/insurance agent spunk. :yawn:

[D. Scarlatti]

Nyuk nyuk.

[Ensign Steve]

Nah, dude, I'm serious. I have your back.

[Angakuk]

I believe insurance companies have people working for them who get bonuses for getting out of paying claims.

Indeed they do. Some of them anyway.

Bismarck, ND – Insurance Commissioner Jim Poolman today announced that he has levied a $750,000 administrative penalty against the Farmers Insurance Group (Farmers), a major, national insurance company that annually writes around $19 million in property and casualty insurance premium in the state. The penalty comes as a result of findings contained in a market conduct exam that focused on auto claims handling of the Farmers Insurance Exchange.

Poolman said, "This action is a result of a comprehensive examination that uncovered systemic claims handling practices that were at best unfair and at worst, abusive to the policyholder."

The market conduct examination, which began in August 2004, reviewed Farmers' claims handling practices from January 1990 through August 1, 2004. The exam report describes incentive programs and slogans, such as the "Bring Back a Billion" campaign, which encouraged employees to work to rebuild surplus and utilized "pledges" that employees signed. Also detailed are company action plans that set goals that were unfair and arbitrary. For example, examiners found that company forms included goals that bodily injury claims be settled within a predetermined range rather than on each claim's merits. In addition, Farmers instituted a goal to close a set percentage of claims without payment.


North Dakota Insurance Department : Communications (http://www.nd.gov/ndins/communications/press-release.asp?PRID=117)