by Darryll » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:26 am
I was involved in an accident in January 2008. The other driver was at fault. I was injured (doctor said whiplash). I settled with insurance company a couple of months later after neck pain subsided. I began having middle back pain about one and a half months after the accident that progressively got worse. I just found out that due to the acident, I have two exploded disks in my thoracic spine that has injured my spinal cord and ill need surgery. My question is can I sue the insurance company after the the initial settlement because of the related injury or will I need to sue the owner of the vehicle. The original settlement was only a check and not a release of liabilty. Was the check the end of it or do I still have recourse?
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 05:48 am Post Subject:
Well, I'd say that you have hurried into the settlement. Your case is the perfect example why the experts keep advising not to settle BI claims till you fully recover.
However, I think you are pretty out-of-luck since I'm sure that you have signed the 'releasing from liability' form for the insurer at the time of settlement.
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 06:00 am Post Subject:
Hey, you may still be able to sue the responsible driver if its within the statute of limitation. Which state are you from? Do you know the SOL of your state?
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 02:11 pm Post Subject:
My question is can I sue the insurance company after the the initial settlement because of the related injury or will I need to sue the owner of the vehicle. The original settlement was only a check and not a release of liabilty. Was the check the end of it or do I still have recourse?
I would think FOR SURE a release was signed, you can consult an attorney if you like but chances are very very very slim that you can go 'back' once settled it's settled...Hey, you may still be able to sue the responsible driver if its within the statute of limitation. Which state are you from? Do you know the SOL of your state?
audacious burglar (quite a screen name there! :wink: ) the statute of limitations will be of no bearing, the release .... releases the responsible party...NOT the insurance companyPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 04:47 pm Post Subject:
Lori, could the op contact his/her own carrier if there is bi coverage even if a release was signed with the other carrier?
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 06:08 pm Post Subject:
Let me see if I have this correct... you settled an injury claim with the at-fault person's carrier and they did not have you sign a release?
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:52 am Post Subject:
Lori, could the op contact his/her own carrier if there is bi coverage even if a release was signed with the other carrier?
No Dave, BI coverage is a liability coverage...so she cannot collect that from her carrier. If she has medpay then maybe but that covers medical bills only. that would be the only thing her carrier could offer her...and I don't see the Claimant carrier doing anything at all since she settled the claim..you settled an injury claim with the at-fault person's carrier and they did not have you sign a release?
Be the first one I've ever heard of if so...how bout you Todd?
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 03:52 am Post Subject:
That was my thought. I've _never_ heard of an adjuster making a BI payment without securing a release.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 05:38 am Post Subject:
I worked for some companies that had release language on the check and they used that as the released once it was signed and cashed (no actual form). For that matter, the release form isn't really worth the paper it is written on until the check is cashed.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 06:25 am Post Subject:
I'd say that the person could just cross through the release language, sign the check and tada, check with no release. I had a situation where the person signed a release, I mailed the check, and then they obtained an attorney. They sent the check back and I simply wrote a letter explaining the settlement had been made and to let me know when they wanted another check. While in some cases a court may overturn the settlement, if both parties agree to the settlement and the injured party signs the release, as long as the payment is _made_, it's a done deal. I say this as the insurance company is living up to their end of the settlement by issuing the payment. Also, if the person signed the settlement the court would not allow the insurance company to back out... why would they then allow the injured party to renege on the agreement.
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:25 pm Post Subject:
Years ago the drafts I used had this too, but MO fair claims practices say endorcing a draft does not constitute a release (actually i think the drafts i use 'now' might even say that on the back)...I know what you mean though Das we had the option to use to use those some times in a very very very small settlement many years ago, I personally NEVER did I always used a release even if it was a buck. I think our OP is out of luck...another lesson learned the hard way, that will hopefully help the next guy...NEVER EVER be in a hurry to settle an injury claim..
Add your comment