Money judgment: Can someone get one against me?

Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:03 am Post Subject:

thanks MB great info....(clearly) I don't know much about umbrella's at all! as a matter of fact I couldn't get my ''company'' umbrella open today got soaked! (true )...seriously thanks..

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 08:27 am Post Subject:

Umbrella insurance is useful for people owning assets to protect from legal actions and judgements. The umbrella insurance offers an extra layer of coverage over an above the policy limits.

There are few popular believes against the umbrella insurance owing to which many policy holders neglect its requirements.

• 
  
• Umbrella insurance is for the riches
  
  
• It is expensive. Maintaining the minimum liability coverage would suffice and buying umbrella plan is wastage of money.
  
  
• The process of getting benefit under the umbrellas insurance is complicated.

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 09:09 am Post Subject:

Hi Rupert

I have some thing to ask..

Increase the limit on your original policy

Or, buy an umbrella policy, which might be a cheaper alternative for many.

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 10:17 pm Post Subject: Excess Judgment is a posibility

Lori:

I stumbled upon this forum, and read your story.

Here are some straight forward questions to your answers.

Your insurance company will hire outside counsel to defend your interests. I've seen some posters state that your insurance company has a duty to settle within the policy limits. This is true, but with an important caveat. There has to be a settlement offer within the limits. For example, if your plaintiff never makes a demand that is within your limits, the insurance company DOES NOT owe you a duty to settle within your limits, due to impossibility.

However, even if the other driver does eventually file suit against you, there is still a chance that the plaintiff's claim will be dismissed.

Most States, like New York, where I'm from, have adopted No-Fault systems, which restrict the right of a plaintiff to bring a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident to those who have suffered a "serious injury."

If the plaintiff doesn't sustain a qualifying injury, they cannot bring the suit. In New York, it is well settled that whether the plaintiff has sustained a qualifying "serious injury" is a threshold matter, and is routinely raised by defense attorneys (just like the ones your insurer will hire to defend you), as grounds for dismissal.

So what is a "serious injury" under New York law (even though I see you're from California)?

Death, disfigurement, loss of a fetus, and fractures are prima facie evidence of a serious injury, while soft tissue injuries depend upon the resulting degree of limitation of use of a body organ, member, function or system (as dictated by objective medical evidnce, subjective complaints are not enough!), and whether such limitation is permanent or "significant", which has been defined as a limitation that is more than "minor, mild or slight."

New York also has a 90/180 category, which defines a "serious injury" as a medically determined injury of a nonpermanent nature which prevents the plaintiff from performing the customary acts which constitute her daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days immediately following the accident.

Even if the other driver gets this far, and has sustained a qualifying serious injury (let's say a broken arm), the case isn't over. THe plaintiff (assisted by their attorneys, of course), still needs to prove all of the elments of negligence: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and, (4) harm.

I am not familiar with the facts of your accident, or California's case law, but I can tell you that in New York, one defense routinely used is called the emergency situation doctrine.

The doctrine attacks both the duty and breach elements of negligence, and argues that you acted as a reasonably prudent person given the circumstances then existing -- namely, a sudden and unforeseeable emergency situation not of your making, which left an insufficient amount of time for you to react or avoid the accident. The argument is that although you hit the other guy, something happened that was completely unforeseeable, and hence, out of your control. It doesn't make much sense to hold someone responsible for something they couldn't have prevented, right Lori?

Please keep in mind that all of these legal defenses are extemely fact specific. You need to speak to a licensed member of the Californai Bar for a proper evaluation of your defense, and don't worry, your insurance company will find them, hire them, and pay them for you. That's what your premiums were for.

Of course, most states have a vehicle and traffic law which imposes a rebuttable presumption of negligence on vehicles that rear-end other motorists. So if you rear-ended the guy, it will be assumed (absent an emergency situation) that you were operating your motor vehicle in a negligent manner, although, you will be given an opportunity to refute this presumption.

Because these situations are highly fact specific, and because confidentiality is always an issue, I urge you not to state the facts of the case on any public forum, and instead, do so only in the presence of your attorney.

Finally, I will address the original question which peaked my interest. Yes, the plaintiff can come after your house. If the plaintiff never makes an offer inside of the policy limits, and forces the case to trial, and he wins, and the jury awards him an amount greater than your policy limits, YOU are personally liable for the excess judgment (in the absence of SUM or UIM insurance). I am currently preparing to meet with a client facing this horrific experience. The majority of the posters were correct, it is very rare for a plaintiff to seek personal assets. Attorneys (who collect 1/3 of the judgment) are not interested in your house, also, at least where I'm from, it is generally considered bad form withint the legal community, absent extenuating circumstances, to go after personal assets.

That said, I am meeting with a client in the morning to discuss strategies to protect her house from any excess judgment. In her case, the plaintiff is extremely vindictive, and refuses to settle within the policy limits. He has stated, under oath, that he plans on "taking that bitch's house, so that she can feel some of the pain I've felt." It's a complete personal attack.

My client has limits of $100k, but the plaintiff was operating a motorcycle at the time of the accident, and his injuries are severe. My client is a 50 year old disabled widow. It's simply cold and uncalled for. I don't mean to scare you, but the reality is, it's posible.

Be patient. The process is long. In New York the statute of limitations is three years. That means, in some cases, the adjuster negotiates with plaintiff's counsel for up to three years to settle the case. When they can't settle the claim and the SOL is running out, the plaintiff will file suit against you. This is when you finally get an attorney, and he or she will guide you through the litigation stage. If, after 1-3 years of litigation (depending on docket loads and discovery issues), the case still hasn't settled, then you will proceed to trial and a jury of your peers will judge your liability and the plaintiff's alleged damages.

I hope this helps you. Although, it has been a while since your original thread.



Don't get me wrong. Your attorneys will look out for your best interests, and will do everything within their power to protect you, but insurance companies are not responsible for any amount in excess of your limits.

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 02:26 am Post Subject:

Bluedevil03,

First of all, your response was lucid, well-read and included great information! Thanks for the input. (I also liked the techno-geeky stuff too) :!:

I have nothing to add to the OPs post; there is a tremendous amount of excellent information already in the thread. I think Lori and tcope provided one helluvan informational thread, and I think you absolutely helped the OP. :wink:

Regarding the umbrella liability coverage issue and a couple of other things...

It's gonna be tough (sorry about this OP) to have the carrier issue the umbrella policy right now. A loss has just occurred, and underwriting won't be happy about the idea of doling out another million dollars or so of protection right now. :cry: You should be able to raise the coverage under the basic auto policy, but as previously stated- it certainly won't be applicable to this loss.

Please keep in mind that there is a difference between an "umbrella" policy and an "excess liability" policy. People tend to use these terms interchangeably, but there are significant differences. Make sure your agent knows what the heck he is talking about here. If you're at all curious, just say the word and we will elucidate!

In terms of excess coverage (used as a generic term), it will apply exactly as is sounds. In terms of other conditions commonly attached to these policy forms:

• * The carrier will normally require that the insured carry both the automobile and homeowner insurance policies in that company, and those policies (known as the "underlying" or "base" contracts) will have to carry
  liability coverage in a certain amount.The typical "underlying limits" must be at least $500,000 (sometime $300k) for auto liability and $300k for HO liability.
  * The limits of the underlying contracts will have to be exhausted before the excess coverage will kick in. Hence the term "excess."
  * The excess contract will have a deductible, usually called a "self-insured retention limit" and I've seen SIRs from $1,000- $5,000 in the personal lines marketplace.
  * Umbrella policies normally require that in order for the umbrella to kick in, the loss must be covered by the underlying contract. In excess liability policies, this is not always the case.
  * The cost for these policies is amazingly inexpensive, but are getting tougher and tougher to underwrite. I have a $2 mm excess liability policy with a $1k SIR that costs me $190 a year. Covers car and house, and even my stupid "incidental business occupancy" needs. I pay far more for my E&O

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:10 am Post Subject:

Teacher, I have queries for you....is it really easy to increase the coverage level whenever you want? I've heard that the insurer might not always allow you to increase the coverage level. How can one convince the insurer for the additional coverage?

Which one is a better option buying the umbrella policy or increasing the level of homeowners coverage?

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 05:45 am Post Subject:

is it really easy to increase the coverage level whenever you want? I've heard that the insurer might not always allow you to increase the coverage level. How can one convince the insurer for the additional coverage?

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:28 am Post Subject:

Okay, then one with a tinted claim record would have problems in increasing his policy limit. I was also wondering that even if the insurer agrees for the hike in coverage limit, would it charge more than normal for the claim history of the policy holder?

Also, can the underwriter suspect fraud if the insured requests to elevate the coverage level?

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:16 pm Post Subject:

I don't think requesting something could be considered as a fraud. But yes, the claims history may affect the rates. Don't you see the obvious reason behind it? Would you choose to cover someone who's suffered with the same worth of coverage that you'd like to cover for someone who has a clean claims history? Ask yourself!

Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 01:36 pm Post Subject: insureds injury & coverages

if an insured has mv/ho/umbrella coverage & is involved in a mv accident in which the other party is 100% @ fault & has minimum required ins under the vehicle involved & as a result the insured becomes disabled & looses their income & thus persues the uim coverage under their own policy doesnt the insurer have an obligation to persue liability from the negligent party & incurr any legal fees in persuing monies on behalf of their insured under any & all lines of insurance the negligent party may have & do these other policies of the insured cover that insured as liabilities for costs incuured as a result of the accident