Recent Allstate Commercial

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 04:40 pm Post Subject: Simple Facts

A. No lawyer wants to take personal assets in a situation like this. This is scare tactics (nothing new over the last 20 years) to make people distrust the best available system - juries.

B. Practically, the lawyer would take a Covenant against the at-fault, preserving his client's right to pursue his own UIM coverage and any other at fault coverage. Don't have UIM? You should - and plenty of it, because you don't know how much the person who hurts YOU is going to have.

C. Are we really feeling sorry for the person who injured/killed the other person due to their own negligence? But all the same, no lawyer is going to actively try to ruin someone who is judgment proof.

D. Why did this case go to trial? SIMPLE - Allstate gambled with this family's future by refusing to pay a fair value to the injured/killed party, gambled that they could "beat the system" by getting a jury that looked at people who bring lawsuits as "greedy." Usually when an insurance company loses that kind of gamble, the family stuck with the bill will, though means legal and proper in most states, begin a process to make the insurance company pay the rest - usually in conjunction with the injured people.

It is a complex business, folks, and what things look like on the surface are usually way more complicated. If you are in the business, you already know and understand everything I have said - but if not, you will no doubt be scratching your head at some of this. Can't be helped.

Bottom Line - Allstate is sleazy for running this ad, which is wrong in so many ways. Yes they want to sell more insurance - reasonable - but they also want to poison people so they don't trust courts and juries - very unreasonable.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 04:47 pm Post Subject:

You mean to say that if the family had 25K in liability insurance and the driver killed the sole provider of a family, the lawyer would tell the family to take the 25K and be happy with it? The lawyer would refuse the case?

I doubt it. That is why the case went to trial.

Sleazy? Sounds like you might have your own agenda here.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 08:14 pm Post Subject: Simple Facts

It works like this. In exchange for a Covenant not to Execute (agree not to pursue personal assets) a suit can still be brought, but the at-fault is protected. This then allows the family to bring a claim against THEIR OWN UIM coverage (which is why you should carry plenty). You can control how much UIM you have, but not how much liability someone else has. Many times the lawyer and the grief stricken family will take the limits even though NO UIM because (A) that money is available now, and (B) At fault does not have anything to "get." Most people are judgment proof, meaning that no matter how hard you try to collect against them, there just is not anything over the amount the State has said you cannot have to satisfy a judgment.

If the unlucky family was also unlucky enough not to have UIM as part of their package of insurance, there is not much more to do. A judgment takes a long time to get, and $25K now to get over the hump of life is better than $25K and a useless piece of paper three or four years from now, which is how long it would take to process the jury trial and inevitable appeals. Meanwhile, the insurance company has the money on the table in exchange for money now.

What would you do - take the money now? or wait for the same money (less, because it does cost to take a case to trial) much later, along with a pretty piece of paper?

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 08:20 pm Post Subject:

What would you do - take the money now? or wait for the same money (less, because it does cost to take a case to trial) much later, along with a pretty piece of paper?

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:27 pm Post Subject:

Lori wrote:

Then the judgement for 1 million comes down...and Gary I'm sorry but there just HAS to be a way to collect that judgement.

Homestead; exemptions.--

(a) There shall be exempt from forced sale under process of any court, and no judgment, decree or execution shall be a lien thereon, except for the payment of taxes and assessments thereon, obligations contracted for the purchase, improvement or repair thereof, or obligations contracted for house, field or other labor performed on the realty, the following property owned by a natural person:

(1) a homestead, if located outside a municipality, to the extent of one hundred sixty acres of contiguous land and improvements thereon, which shall not be reduced without the owner's consent by reason of subsequent inclusion in a municipality; or if located within a municipality, to the extent of one-half acre of contiguous land, upon which the exemption shall be limited to the residence of the owner or the owner's family.

222.11 Exemption of wages from garnishment.
(2)(a) All of the disposable earnings of a head of family whose disposable earnings are less than or equal to $500 a week are exempt from attachment or garnishment.

(b) Disposable earnings of a head of a family, which are greater than $500 a week, may not be attached or garnished unless such person has agreed otherwise in writing.

222.14 Exemption of cash surrender value of life insurance policies and annuity contracts from legal process.--The cash surrender values of life insurance policies issued upon the lives of citizens or residents of the state and the proceeds of annuity contracts issued to citizens or residents of the state, upon whatever form, shall not in any case be liable to attachment, garnishment or legal process in favor of any creditor of the person whose life is so insured or of any creditor of the person who is the beneficiary of such annuity contract, unless the insurance policy or annuity contract was effected for the benefit of such creditor.

222.18 Exempting disability income benefits from legal processes.--Disability income benefits under any policy or contract of life, health, accident, or other insurance of whatever form, shall not in any case be liable to attachment, garnishment, or legal process in the state, in favor of any creditor or creditors of the recipient of such disability income benefits, unless such policy or contract of insurance was effected for the benefit of such creditor or creditors.

222.21 Exemption of pension money and certain tax-exempt funds or accounts from legal processes.--

1. Maintained in accordance with a master plan, volume submitter plan, prototype plan, or any other plan or governing instrument that has been preapproved by the Internal Revenue Service as exempt from taxation under s. 401(a), s. 403(a), s. 403(b), s. 408, s. 408A, s. 409, s. 414, s. 457(b), or s. 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

222.22 Exemption of assets in qualified tuition programs, medical savings accounts, Coverdell education savings accounts, and hurricane savings accounts from legal process.--

(1) Moneys paid into or out of, the assets of, and the income of any validly existing qualified tuition program authorized by s. 529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including, but not limited to, the Florida Prepaid College Trust Fund advance payment contracts under s. 1009.98 and Florida Prepaid College Trust Fund participation agreements under s. 1009.981, are not liable to attachment, levy, garnishment, or legal process in the state in favor of any creditor of or claimant against any program participant, purchaser, owner or contributor, or program beneficiary.

222.25 Other individual property of natural persons exempt from legal process.--The following property is exempt from attachment, garnishment, or other legal process:

(1) A debtor's interest, not to exceed $1,000 in value, in a single motor vehicle.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:31 pm Post Subject: Simple Facts

That's one reason lawyers exist - to talk folks off of the emotional binge of thinking that "Boy I am going to ruin this guy's life..." Moving on, and not hanging on unnecessarily is almost always the right thing to do if hanging on will not change things appreciably. Having large liability limits is great - but this is what to take away from this - make sure your own UIM limits are very substantial - put the fate in your own hands - don't rely on the good judgment of some jackass who can't drive.

And let me tell you - drinking and driving or a moment's inattention - it doesn't make anyone less dead or hurt. And there are only so many "screws" you can put into someone inside the legal system. One earlier poster basically advocated frontier justice - realize that the court system exists to replace lynching, mob rule, and frontier justice. I don't think we make ourselves a better country or people by taking revenge for revenge sake.

Lots of the really bad things - racing, drinking - also have a criminal component, so there is some solace there. But again, it is done in a fashion that comports with due process - they have an attorney - someone on their side - to make sure that the guilt and punishment is meted out fairly. Fair punishment sounds silly unless it is someone you love being punished, or god forbid, you.

Remember - the system works. And it is pretty simple - you break it, you pay for it. The system is fair and works well 99 times out of 100. It's like anything else - it is the truly odd things you hear about - the things that are out of the ordinary. Nothing newsworthy about 2000 trials being held today that all ended with a fair and reasonable verdict. Nothing newsworthy about 1900 commercial airplanes taking off and landing without a hitch.

It is the odd, the unusual, that are "newsworthy" - the exceptions.

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:36 pm Post Subject: Simple Facts

One more thing. Remember we are talking about a MADE UP scenario which was MADE UP by Allstate to further its own agenda. They would not have skillfully MADE UP this scenario then paid oodles to air it unless it met their nefarious needs and intentions. They are not our buddies, they are not our pals, they are insurance companies. They love to take it in, hate to pay it out. That is the business they have chosen and what they do.

Keep asking yourself - as you always should - what is being sold here? A product? An agenda? A belief system? SOMETHING is always being sold or they would not have spent the money.

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 09:56 am Post Subject:

I have to agree in writing for any amount above $500

Why not make the lawsuit for $5,000,000? $20,000,000?

Now what's interesting is your beef on this thread is my $25,000 worth of liability insurance. It's not that I don't have auto insurance it's the fact that's it's low and not in the $100,000 or $300,000 range.

So are you saying if I had $100,000 or $300,000 of liability insurance that you wouldn't sue me for the $1,000,000?

I'll say it again, attorneys sue corporations and insurance companies they DO NOT sue "Joe the Plumber" to win a multi-million dollar judgment where there isn't any money to collect.

make sure your own UIM limits are very substantial

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:00 am Post Subject:

This is too funny!

Lori, you are simply in denial.

No attorney would pursue your case to win a million dollar judgment that would never be paid.

This is silly:

Dude, I'll take the 500 a week..that's 2k a month, 22k a year...tax free...yep, that'll be fine...you won't forget what you did as long as you live, and write that check every week will ya'? Yeah, actually I think that'll work out better than a lump sum...

222.11 Exemption of wages from garnishment.
(2)(a) All of the disposable earnings of a head of family whose disposable earnings are less than or equal to $500 a week are exempt from attachment or garnishment.

(b) Disposable earnings of a head of a family, which are greater than $500 a week, may not be attached or garnished unless such person has agreed otherwise in writing.

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:23 pm Post Subject:

I misunderstood it...so you're saying you make less than

All of the disposable earnings of a head of family whose disposable earnings are less than or equal to $500 a week are exempt from attachment or garnishment.