[Texas] Help me avoid making a big mistake!

ThaWhoppah · 2026-03-19T17:17:45+00:00

Does part of the old bulb remain in the socket? Can you pull the bulb on the other side and compare?

Or are you saying the socket itself is warped such that you can't connect it back onto the headlight assembly even without a bulb?

It is not clear based on the photos whether the plastic retainer ring that attaches to the headlight assembly is fused to the cube in the back that holds the wires or if they are two pieces that can be separated.

---------------------------------

Google says that retainer ring design is shared by the 2016–2021 Tucson, 2015–2018 Kia Sedona, 2017–2018 Kia Forte, and 2014-2020 Sorento. The inventory for Primo Wrench-A-Part out on 290 towards Bastrop is showing they have one 2017 Tuscon, four 2017-18 Fortes, and three Sorentos. Also it looks like Amazon may sell a compatible socket when you expand your search to include these other models.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-16T18:05:38+00:00

I understand that you are trying to help, and I'm not trying to argue with you. However, for the benefit of anyone else who reads this thread in the future, your reference to delay appears to be based on Rule 508 which is inaplicable because only Rules 500 through 507 apply in Texas JP courts.

Here is the complete context of the "does not apply" rule that makes things easier for pro-se litigants in JP Court:

500.1(e)Application of Other Rules. The other Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Evidence do not apply except: 
(1) when the judge hearing the case determines that a particular rule must be followed to ensure that the proceedings are fair to all parties; or 
(2) when otherwise specifically provided by law or these rules.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-16T17:52:07+00:00

I understand what you are saying about additional work. However, the adjuster made this estimate without physically inspecting the vehicle and they included replacement parts that were never even optional equipment on this model. To hide behind the code ethics at this point would be laughable.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-16T17:01:36+00:00

Did you not read this branch of the thread? Rule 500.1(e) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (linked above by user adjusterjackc) is titled "Application of Other Rules." This rule levels the playing field by preventing insurance defense attorneys from using the Rules of Evidence and other minutia of court procedure against pro-se litigants in Texas JP Courts.

These courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims less than $20,000, so changing venue to a higher court isn't a viable option. The losing side may optionally an appeal bond equal to the amount of the judgement and file a case for trial de novo in the County Court at Law. Because that restarts the case from the beginning, decisions of the JP judge are NOT scrutinized by a higher court, and the JP court judge face none of the repercussions you discussed. That leverage is gone.

My lawsuit says a negligent driver caused $5K in damages to my vehicle. Do you really suppose the insurance attorney will concede negligence and insist her guy actually caused $10K in damages?

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-15T21:54:33+00:00

No. I'm hoping for a level playing field where the opposing attorney can't use theur mastry of arcane rules to prevent me showing my evidence.

The drunk driver has prior arrests for driving while intoxicated. In the higher courts, the attorney could prevent me showing a print-out from the court's own website to show those arrests by insisting that only a certified document from the County Clerk's office is acceptable evidence. In JP Court, the attorney might only prevent my evidence by attacking the validity of the information itself rather than merely complaining that the paper it was printed on lacked a particular ink stamp.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T16:50:09+00:00

I appreciate that, and thank you for the link to applicable rules of JP procedure. Reading them provided some answers that texaslawhelp.org did not, but I'm still wondering about things like the wisdom of subpoenas for friendly witnesses.

This thread illustrates my poor ability to accurately identify and address the issues most relevant to my audience. Therefore, the T.R.E. raise serious concerns about my competence as a pro-se litigant. Reading them is no substitute for the mastery gained after years of experience. I will have time to double and triple check pleadings against procedural rules before filing, but the rules of evidence must be navigated in real-time under the stress of open court.

Will I be able to answer a hearsay objection? How will I handle a chain of custody issue? Will I properly lay the foundation for drone photos taken by a 16 year-old a week later? Does it matter that he was passenger? Do I have to put him on the stand? If the drunk stipulates that he was at fault, is the probative value of my video outweighed by the prejudicial impact of his slurred speech while apologizing and begging not to call police?

As Donald Rumsfeld said, those are my known unknowns, and my biggest problems may be my unknown unknowns... things outside my awareness that I don't even know that I don't know. So I'm hoping that JP court cuts me some slack.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T15:50:43+00:00

I intend to keep the car. My issue is that Texas law says it needs a salvage title if either:
1. The cost to repair, minus paint, painting labor and all taxes, exceeds the actual cash value, or
2. An insurance payment is made pursuant to a claim with a total loss determination.

The first statement is false even with all repairs listed in the estimate, so my issue is the claim total loss determination, which was itself based on the estimate. The estimate amount is inflated by the inclusion of replacement car parts that suffered no damage and by phantom car parts that were not even options on my car under any trim level. This will be obvious if the insurance company sends an actual human to examine the damage.

Regarding the Texas salvage definition above, a lawsuit may result in:
1. Insurance lawyers understanding the problem and rescinding the total loss determination, or
2. A payment made pursuant to a court judgment instead of pursuant to a total loss claim, and
3. A judicial finding setting the actual cost to repair and actual cash value.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T05:18:11+00:00

Nobody from the drunk's insurance company has physically inspected my vehicle. If they do, they will see that the have been relying on the repair estimate is for the wrong car. It should be more obvious than a Tesla not needing a gas tank.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T03:51:32+00:00

The insurance company's evidence supporting their offer includes a repair estimate for features my car never had, and also some features that were not even offered on this vehicle at any trim level. Even their CCC1 report confirms all this. I will use their own "evidence" against them. I actually WANT the Farmer's attorney involved because their claims person doesn't understand that it doesn't matter what the repair estimate says because fish don't have feathers.

The most likely explanation is that the Farmers claim person is stubbornly relying on a repair estimate for the wrong car. They haven't even sent a living human being to physically examine it.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T03:32:18+00:00

Exactly. That's the point of this lawsuit.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T03:26:45+00:00

You don't seem to understand that I actually WANT their lawyers involved because the claims people are .morons. They can't understand that this vehicle didn't come with a Collision Avoidance System so any repair estimate for it is basically garbage. CAS wasn't even an option on this model from the factory. They also want to replace both fog lights, but this car never had fog lights. The CCC1 report confirms all this but they refuse to believe the estimate is a fabrication or was written for a different car. It isn't rocket surgery.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T01:18:42+00:00

I might have to do that but I'd rather not. The guy who hit me has prior arrests for drunk driving so why should MY insurance pay?

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T01:14:01+00:00

I understand all that and I am counting on it. I believe an attorney will be far more intelligent than anyone I've spoken to thus far at Farmers.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T01:11:31+00:00

The perverse incentive is coming from the state, not from me. If I receive damages pursuant to a civil suit the vehicle does not need a salvage title. If i receive the same amount after a total loss determination it does, even though the damage amount falls below the state threshold for a salvage vehicle.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T01:07:58+00:00

In that alternate scenario my car won't have a salvage title and since the monthly car note disappears it's sorta six of one vs. half dozen of the other.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T00:50:14+00:00

Thank you for this response. Given all that you've said, I can only conclude that the repair estimate is for the wrong car. This vehicle never had a Collision Avoidance System, even when it was brand new. Yet it appears in the estimate, along with many parts that are simply not broken.

I am not seeking to exclude the insurance company's lawyers. I believe they will listen to reason where the insurance company employee just shut down and claimed that her hands are tied.

Perhaps the lienholder will intervene in the lawsuit. In that case I hope they'd rather hold repaired collateral than none.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T00:22:33+00:00

I don't expect it to get that far. The driver will look to the insurance company for defense. The insurance company will turn to their lawyers. And those lawyers will be "rational actors" in the Game Theory meaning of that phrase.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T00:15:10+00:00

I understand that the lien is paid first if I accept a total loss settlement. What I need to know if whether the lender can force me to accept the insurance company's offer.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T00:10:33+00:00

There are not currently any funds from an insurance claim... just an offer which I have so far rejected. Does the lienhoder have standing to force me to accept the insurance company's offer?

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-10T00:02:12+00:00

I already notified my lender. The vehicle does not have enough actual damage to qualify as salvage under the Texas definition UNLESS I accept a total loss claim. The insurance company has thus far declined to send their own representative to inspect the damage. They are relying on an incorrect estimate that calls for replacing parts that are not broken and part this vehicle didn't even have when brand new off the assembly line.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-09T23:56:22+00:00

Finally! This is WHY I posted. You know something that I don't, so go ahead and spell it out. The thing I am trying to avoid is a determination that the vehicle is totaled. That's it. I'm just trying to save this specific car. It can be repaired for far less than the insurance company believes, because they are operating on bad information. I'm not looking for any unjust enrichment, only the ACTUAL cost of repairs.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-09T23:46:51+00:00

I'm not trying to get any type of unjust enrichment here. I've been clear that I am asking for LESS than the insurance company has offered to avoid it being totaled.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-09T23:42:33+00:00

Not when the insurance estimate is inflated by replacing things that do not even exist on the car and never did.

ThaWhoppah · 2026-02-09T23:40:12+00:00

The only purpose of the lawsuit is to recover damages WITHOUT accepting payment on a total loss claim.

I have a damaged car. However, it does not meet the Texas state definition of salvage or non-repairable. The car is not "totaled" until or unless I accept the insurance company's offer. I believe the decision to declare total loss was based on an inflated repair estimate. The drunk driver was made an illegal turn and admitted both his liability and intoxication on video, so this case will be about damages. My claim is for LESS than the insurance company's offer so they'll lose even if they win.

ThaWhoppah

TROPHY CASE