Families who lose someone to an impaired or fleeing driver often arrive at our office holding a case number and a prosecutor’s business card. They have been told to expect a hearing date. What almost nobody has explained is that the criminal case, however it ends, is not designed to make their family whole.<\/p>\n
A prosecutor represents the People of the State of California. Not the widow. Not the children. If the driver is convicted, the sentence punishes the driver, and a restitution order may cover certain out-of-pocket losses. Neither the sentence nor the restitution order accounts for the decades of financial support your family just lost, or the value of the relationship itself.<\/p>\n
That is what the civil system is for, and it operates on a completely separate track.<\/p>\n
The situation gets harder when the driver flees. Families assume that an unidentified driver means no recovery. In California, that is frequently untrue, because a hit-and-run driver is treated as an uninsured motorist under your own policy.<\/p>\n
Below we set out how the civil and criminal tracks interact, when punitive damages are actually available against an intoxicated driver (a point most articles state incorrectly), how to use uninsured motorist coverage after a hit-and-run, and why criminal restitution is not a substitute for a wrongful death claim<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n The two proceedings share a set of facts and almost nothing else. They have different parties, different burdens of proof, different goals, and different timelines.<\/p>\n The criminal case is People v. the driver<\/em>. The district attorney decides what to charge, whether to offer a plea, and whether to dismiss. Your family is a witness and a victim with statutory rights, but not a party. You cannot direct the case, and you cannot settle it.<\/p>\n The civil case is your family’s. You choose whether to file, whom to sue, whether to accept an offer, and when to resolve it.<\/p>\n The burdens differ dramatically. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil wrongful death claim requires only a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not. This is why an acquittal or a dismissal does not end the civil claim. The prosecution may have failed to meet a much higher standard of evidence that comfortably satisfies the civil one.<\/p>\n A conviction helps. It is powerful evidence; it often streamlines proof of liability, and in the drunk driving context, a felony conviction unlocks a category of damages that would otherwise be unavailable, as discussed in the next section.<\/p>\n What a conviction does not do is compensate your family. Fines are paid to the state. Incarceration transfers no money. Restitution is real but limited in scope, which we cover further below.<\/p>\n Families frequently tell us they want to let the criminal case finish first. That instinct is understandable and usually costly.<\/p>\n California gives you two years from the date of death to file a wrongful death lawsuit. Criminal proceedings involving a fatality often run longer than that, particularly where there are continuances or a trial. Waiting can extinguish the civil claim entirely.<\/p>\n Evidence also disappears on a schedule that nobody announces. Commercial and residential surveillance video is commonly overwritten within thirty days. Vehicles get repaired, sold, or scrapped. Skid marks and debris fields are gone within days. The vehicle’s event data recorder holds speed and braking information that can be lost when the car is released.<\/p>\n Filing a civil case does not interfere with the prosecution. The two run in parallel routinely, and civil discovery tools frequently develop evidence the criminal file never contained, particularly regarding an employer’s liability or a commercial vehicle’s maintenance history.<\/p>\n A prosecutor charges the driver. A civil claim can reach everyone whose conduct contributed, and this is often where meaningful recovery actually lives:<\/p>\n In the fatal Amazon delivery truck case that produced a $7 million settlement for our client, the corporate relationship was central. The criminal system has no mechanism to reach that kind of defendant.<\/p>\n Punitive damages punish the defendant rather than compensate the family, and drunk driving is the classic scenario people associate with them. California law here is narrower than most online summaries suggest, and the distinction matters enormously.<\/p>\n Under Civil Code section 3294<\/u><\/a>, punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. That is a higher burden than the preponderance standard governing the rest of the case.<\/p>\n Subdivision (c) defines malice as conduct intended to cause injury, or “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” Choosing to drive while intoxicated is frequently argued to fit that second definition.<\/p>\n Here is the part families are rarely told. In a California wrongful death<\/strong> action, punitive damages are generally not available at all.<\/p>\n Section 3294(d) permits them in a death case only where the death “resulted from a homicide for which the defendant has been convicted of a felony.” No felony homicide conviction, no punitive damages on the wrongful death claim, no matter how egregious the driving.<\/p>\n This makes the criminal outcome directly consequential to the civil recovery, and it is one of the strongest reasons to stay engaged with the prosecution rather than disengage from it. A conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated under Penal Code section 191.5(a) is a felony, punishable by a state prison term of four, six, or ten years. Where the facts support a murder charge on an implied malice theory, that too is a felony homicide.<\/p>\n If the driver is convicted only of a misdemeanor, or the case resolves by a plea to a non-homicide offense, the punitive claim on the wrongful death cause of action generally goes away.<\/p>\n There is a second path that does not depend on subdivision (d). A survival action is a separate claim brought by the decedent’s estate for losses the person incurred before dying. Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34(a) expressly preserves “any penalties or punitive or exemplary damages that the decedent would have been entitled to recover had the decedent lived.”<\/p>\n So, where the person survived the crash for some period, the estate may pursue punitive damages through the survival action under the ordinary section 3294 standard, without needing a felony homicide conviction.<\/p>\n Note an important recent change. The temporary authorization allowing survival actions to recover the decedent’s pre-death pain, suffering, and disfigurement expired for actions filed on or after January 1, 2026. Punitive damages under section 377.34(a) survive that change, but the pain and suffering component does not.<\/p>\n Punitive damages are usually excluded from liability insurance coverage as a matter of public policy. A punitive award therefore has to be collected from the driver personally.<\/p>\n Against a driver with limited assets, a headline punitive number can be uncollectible. This is not a reason to abandon the claim, because it retains real settlement leverage and expressive value for families. It is a reason to be clear-eyed, and a reason that identifying an employer or vehicle owner with actual insurance often matters far more to the family’s financial outcome than the punitive claim does.<\/p>\n When the driver flees and is never identified, families assume the case is over. Under California law, it usually is not, because your own policy steps into the absent driver’s place.<\/p>\n Insurance Code section 11580.2<\/u><\/a> defines an uninsured motor vehicle to include one where “the owner or operator thereof be unknown.” An unidentified hit-and-run driver falls squarely inside the definition, and uninsured motorist coverage responds.<\/p>\n Coverage may be available under the policy of the person who died, a resident relative’s policy, or the policy on the vehicle involved. More than one policy can apply, so every household policy should be reviewed rather than just the obvious one.<\/p>\n For an unknown driver, section 11580.2 attaches conditions, and missing any of them can defeat an otherwise valid claim:<\/p>\n A fourth deadline governs the claim itself. Under subdivision (i)(1), within two years of the accident, the claimant must file suit against the responsible party, agree with the insurer on the amount due, or formally institute arbitration by written notice sent by certified mail. Simply reporting the claim and waiting for an adjuster to respond does not satisfy this.<\/p>\n These requirements land on families in the worst two weeks of their lives. The 24-hour reporting condition, in particular, is often missed while relatives are still arranging a funeral, which is one reason we ask families to contact us before they speak with any adjuster.<\/p>\n Identifying the driver does not guarantee recovery. California’s minimum liability limits are low relative to what a fatal crash actually costs a family, and many drivers carry nothing beyond the minimum.<\/p>\n Underinsured motorist coverage addresses the gap between the at-fault driver’s limits and your own UIM limits. In California, UIM operates on an excess basis: the at-fault driver’s liability limits are exhausted first, and your UIM coverage pays the difference up to your policy limit rather than stacking on top of the full amount. Understanding that arithmetic before accepting a liability settlement is essential, because settling with the at-fault driver without your own insurer’s consent can jeopardize the UIM claim.<\/p>\n For a broader picture of how auto claims get valued in California, our discussion of average car accident settlement<\/u><\/a> figures covers the underlying methodology.<\/p>\n Civil Code section 3333.4<\/u><\/a>, enacted by Proposition 213 in 1996, bars recovery of non-economic damages by certain claimants, including the owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident and a driver who cannot establish financial responsibility.<\/p>\n There is a significant carve-out. Subdivision (c) provides that an uninsured vehicle owner injured by a motorist who was driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152 or 23153 and was convicted of that offense is not barred from recovering non-economic damages. In other words, where the at-fault driver is convicted of DUI, the Proposition 213 bar does not apply to that claimant.<\/p>\n This is worth raising early rather than discovering late, because insurers raise it aggressively and families rarely see it coming.<\/p>\n Restitution is the point of maximum confusion. A judge orders the defendant to pay the family money, and the family reasonably concludes that compensation has been handled.<\/p>\n Under Penal Code section 1202.4<\/u><\/a>, restitution is ordered: “in every case in which a victim has suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” The order is enforceable as if it were a civil judgment.<\/p>\n The operative words are economic loss<\/em>. Restitution reimburses documented out-of-pocket items such as medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and mental health counseling costs.<\/p>\n Restitution does not compensate for the loss of the relationship. The largest component of most wrongful death recoveries, the loss of the decedent’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support, training, and guidance, has no place in a restitution order.<\/p>\n Nor does restitution capture the full economic picture. A civil claim values decades of lost financial support projected across a working life, the value of lost benefits, and the replacement cost of household services, typically supported by a forensic economist. Restitution addresses bills that have already come due.<\/p>\n The other limitation is practical. A restitution order against an incarcerated defendant with no assets may be collected in small deductions from prison wages over many years. It is a real obligation that does not expire, but it rarely functions as meaningful compensation on any useful timeline.<\/p>\n Restitution does not bar a civil suit. Section 1202.4 provides that restitution collected is credited against any other judgment obtained against the defendant for the same losses.<\/p>\n Read that carefully: the credit applies to the same losses<\/em>. Restitution covering funeral expenses offsets a civil award for those same funeral expenses. It has no effect on non-economic damages, on projected lost support, or on a claim against a different defendant, such as an employer, because those are not the same losses and not the same defendant.<\/p>\n Families facing immediate costs should know about the California Victim Compensation Board, which can reimburse eligible expenses without waiting for the criminal or civil case. CalVCB covers funeral and burial costs, income loss, support loss for dependents, and mental health counseling<\/u><\/a>, up to an overall maximum of $70,000 per victim, with caps on individual categories.<\/p>\n CalVCB is not a replacement for a civil claim, and amounts it pays are generally subject to reimbursement out of a later recovery. It is a bridge, and for families suddenly facing funeral costs, it is often the fastest money available.<\/p>\n Expect the defense to argue that the person who died bore some responsibility, even against an intoxicated driver. Common assertions involve speed, an unsafe lane change, or a pedestrian crossing outside a marked crosswalk.<\/p>\n California follows pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co.<\/em> (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. Recovery is reduced by the decedent’s percentage of responsibility, but it is not eliminated, even at a high percentage. A family found 30 percent at fault recovers 70 percent.<\/p>\n Two points matter here. Insurers often overstate the decedent’s share early, when the family has no accident reconstruction of its own to answer with. And a jury weighing a comparative fault argument advanced on behalf of a driver who was legally intoxicated is not a receptive audience.<\/p>\n We explain how the allocation works in our overview of comparative negligence in California injury claims<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\nCivil Claims vs. the Criminal Prosecution: Separate and Parallel<\/h2>\n
Different parties and different burdens<\/h3>\n
What a conviction does and does not give you<\/h3>\n
Why waiting for the criminal case is a mistake<\/h3>\n
Defendants in the criminal case will never be named<\/h3>\n
\n
Punitive Damages Against an Intoxicated Driver<\/h2>\n
The standard<\/h3>\n
The restriction most articles get wrong<\/h3>\n
The survival action route<\/h3>\n
The practical question nobody asks first<\/h3>\n
Using Uninsured\/Underinsured Motorist Coverage After a Hit-and-Run<\/h2>\n
A hit-and-run driver counts as an uninsured motorist<\/h3>\n
Three deadlines that quietly destroy claims<\/h3>\n
\n
Underinsured coverage when the drunk driver is found but carries a minimum policy<\/h3>\n
A trap worth knowing about<\/h3>\n
Criminal Restitution vs. Full Civil Recovery<\/h2>\n
What restitution covers<\/h3>\n
What restitution leaves out<\/h3>\n
Restitution and a civil judgment do not stack<\/h3>\n
A faster source of help<\/h3>\n
Where Comparative Fault Enters a Fatal Drunk Driving Case<\/h2>\n