In January, 2018, Nicole’s client (a minor) was involved in a car accident. As a result of icy roads, she slid into a car that was stopped on the road because, only minutes before, it had been stuck by another vehicle. Although the respective insurance companies determined that Nicole’s client’s share of the damage was only approximately $2,000.00 of the $16,500.00 in damage, the owner of the vehicle came after Nicole’s client for nearly $15,000.00 in restitution that he determined to be for the “diminished value” of the vehicle. He also wanted her to pay for the unpaid portion of his loan on the vehicle, unused engine oil, and the tread remaining on his tires at the time of the collision.
Nicole challenged the restitution, because (1) he had already been made whole by the insurance company who had determined the vehicles value, (2) his own valuation of his vehicle was unrealistic, and (3) he used the insurance money to buy a new car instead of paying off his loan and now wanted Nicole’s client to pay off his loan.
Nicole requested evidence from the initial car accident, subpoenaed insurance information, and submitted documents to the court challenging the restitution amount. Following a cross-examination of the victim at a contested restitution hearing, the court ordered that Nicole’s client did not have to pay any restitution, saving her (and her parents) up to $15,000.00.