Yep. My parents pulled some crap like this when I was about 15. I had to work for 2 summers to save up enough money to buy a stereo for my room. I had to settle because I couldn’t afford every accessory I wanted, like remote control, the ability to play multiple CDs at once (this was late 80s early 90s). I had it for about a month and my parents decided to buy my younger sister a stereo for her room. Mind you, she was like 12. She got a super nice system with all the bells and whistles, 6 disc changer, etc. She didnt even want one and they still bought it for her. It was like $200 more than what I paid, with my money! When I protested, they said to quit complaining because I already had a stereo and it wasn’t fair that I had one and she didn’t.
After that, I had asked for a phone in my room and they said no. So every time I wanted to talk to my friends or a boy, I had to do it sitting at the kitchen table. When I was 19 I moved out and the next week they put a phone in her room with its own number and everything. The thing is, I was always the rule follower and was a good kid who got good grades. My sister was a hellion and used to hide her empty beer cans in her room when she was 14.
Kids carry favoritism and inequality with them for a very long time. They will remember.
Jeeze, if they wanted your sister to have a stereo so badly they should have upgraded you to the fancy system under the rule that you give your sister the one you purchased. Praising you for doing so well at saving up AND coddling the could so no wrong child. Two birds, one stone 🤣🤣
I would agree too... if it was OK to make up an entirely new, different and conflicting factual structure than what OP actually wrote.
But on the facts given, Casey is a blackmailing brat. The insurance company already gave her what she's entitled to, the value of the car. If it wasn't enough to get the dream new car she wanted, that's her problem. No one owes her a thing. NTA. In fact OP should *never* buy her a new car, since Casey already has the insurance money, and can save up her own money if she wants to buy a better car.
I'd come out the other way if OP forced Casey to let her sister use the car. I'd *definitely* come out the other way if OP took Casey's insurance money and spent it on other things (e.g. medical bills), which was a decision Casey was entitled to make since she paid for the car.
No, you don’t get the value, insurance doesn’t work that way. In no world is she entitled or a brat, in every world she, a child, has had her parents literally use her to assist her sister. She is not her sisters keeper.
Frankly she should sue her sister, then she will get a judgment for the actual value. She’ll never get a dime though sadly.
Alana should be paying Casey for the loss of her car, and mom and dad should have been making sure Alana was taking responsibility for her actions from the beginning.
Suing is an option.
Alana could get a job and pay back Casey.
Or the parents pay Casey for the rest of cost of the loss car, and then the parents can get the money from Alana doing extra jobs around the house (not regular chores though).
That’s not how insurance works, especially if Alana caused the accident (which we don’t know). It sounds like if they need a full year to have funds to get another car they definitely didn’t have full coverage on the car.
Yes, it is exactly how insurance works. It is subject to coverage limits of course, but I'm guessing Casey wasn't driving a ferrari. Nor does it make a difference who caused it since the OP is clear that they did in fact have collision coverage or there would not have been any insurance payment at all.
I love how people on reddit know zero about something but start babbling on about it anyway. LOL
She's 17, I doubt the car depreciated much over the few months she had it. But there are too many details left out by OP.
Yeah she might've gotten the "car's worth" deemed by the insurance company, but that's obviously not enough to replace the car. You were saying she'd get the full refund from the insurance, which she obviously didn't or she'd just be able to buy the car again.
Settling for a worse car is pandering to the younger siblings like everyone is complaining about. She shouldn't be off the hook even if the older sibling can technically afford some type of motor vehicle.
If the car had depreciated in value she should still be able to buy a similar replacement for the depreciated value because all of that sort of car should be worth less. No?
Her car, her insurance, her sisters accident, there is literally no other type at play. Plus even if more were most don’t make folks whole, which is why many buy riders to do so. Take care.
Why on earth is it her problem that somebody else wrecked her car and now she doesn’t have one. No fault of her own whatsoever but somehow you think it’s her problem. What the absolute fuck.
In pretty much any AITA, you can ALWAYS make up horrible facts about the OP that are found nowhere in the letter, and then conclude they are an asshole. But is that fair?
That's like me saying you're an asshole because people in reddit comment sections with Narwhal in their names are usually child molesters. Fair?
Maybe you should try that too. It literally says that Casey didn't get and I quote "nearly enough to cover the replacement" not upgrade the car, replace the car. Okay?
261
u/oceansky2088 5d ago
Right. I was thinking the same thing that Casey has lived her life with Alana always being prioritized over her and this is the last straw.