by pramitsg » Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:31 pm
Hello,
I was in an accident few days back. This happened in Las Vegas. It happened in an intersection. There was a STOP sign on my way and I stopped on it. The intersecting road do not have Stop sign. I saw the roads were clear and started to pull up. Suddenly a car came and hit me on the rear passenger side just on top of rear tire. After the crash that car didnot even steped on her brake rather she steped on gas and hit a fence nearby and broke it. The cop gave me a citation and put me at fault for right off way. The lady that was driving the other car is 85 years old and was taken to hospital (ICU) where she stayed for 2 weeks. My current insurance liability limit is $50000 but my insurance is saying that the liability may exceed $50000 because of the ICU bill, fence bill (property damage will come on me as I am at fault) and the lady's car damage. My insurance is saying that it is clear from the accident that she was speeding and she didn't steped on the brake because there was no skid mark on the road (this is as per police report), also she hit me in rear side that means I almost covered 80% of the intersection. My insurance is saying that the chances of liability coming up on me is less, because the lady has Under insurance coverage on her insurance and also medicare will come into picture because she is 85. She has also hired a attorney to take care of her claims. Please let me know what are the chances that the liability may come on me (or if it will come on me)? Also am I at 100% at fault in this accident? I am bit worried if the liability come on me because I am not in a position of pay off this bill.
I was in an accident few days back. This happened in Las Vegas. It happened in an intersection. There was a STOP sign on my way and I stopped on it. The intersecting road do not have Stop sign. I saw the roads were clear and started to pull up. Suddenly a car came and hit me on the rear passenger side just on top of rear tire. After the crash that car didnot even steped on her brake rather she steped on gas and hit a fence nearby and broke it. The cop gave me a citation and put me at fault for right off way. The lady that was driving the other car is 85 years old and was taken to hospital (ICU) where she stayed for 2 weeks. My current insurance liability limit is $50000 but my insurance is saying that the liability may exceed $50000 because of the ICU bill, fence bill (property damage will come on me as I am at fault) and the lady's car damage. My insurance is saying that it is clear from the accident that she was speeding and she didn't steped on the brake because there was no skid mark on the road (this is as per police report), also she hit me in rear side that means I almost covered 80% of the intersection. My insurance is saying that the chances of liability coming up on me is less, because the lady has Under insurance coverage on her insurance and also medicare will come into picture because she is 85. She has also hired a attorney to take care of her claims. Please let me know what are the chances that the liability may come on me (or if it will come on me)? Also am I at 100% at fault in this accident? I am bit worried if the liability come on me because I am not in a position of pay off this bill.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 01:18 pm Post Subject:
Goodmorning tcope,
Greatly appreciate for sharing your knowledge............. :D
The BI carrier would provide a defense for their insured. The defense coverage is separate from the BI limit and unlimited.
does the insured need to pay a premium for the legal defense coverage or is is automatically included in your auto policy? and does all insured get unlimited defense coverage? or the defense coverage differs by how low or how high your BI coverage is?
If the UIMBI carrier can show that they would have preserved their right of recovery then they could deny the UIMBI claim. Again, I've never seen a UIMBI carrier preserve their right of recovery.
sorry, I am a little confused here, so an attorney can have the release signed without the okay from the UIMBI carrier? I got confused with your prior post mentioning that
The injured person cannot accept it until the UIMBI carrier gives their okay (it's written into the injured person's policy as to protect the UIMBI carriers right of recovery for anything paid under UIMBI).
When I quoted for a full coverage for auto insurance, Uninsured Motorist is always a coverage option in the policy, but I seldom see Underinsured motorist coverages, in your many years of experience, does more people have uninsured motorist than underinsured motorist coverage? is it because of the concern of premium?
Thanks a lot :D
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 05:45 pm Post Subject:
does the insured need to pay a premium for the legal defense coverage or is is automatically included in your auto policy? and does all insured get unlimited defense coverage?
Defense is provided by the carrier and part of the policy. No additional premium is charged. Technically, there is no dollar limit on defense costs.sorry, I am a little confused here, so an attorney can have the release signed without the okay from the UIMBI carrier?
The injured person can sign if they want... an insurance company can't physically stop it from happening. The UIMBI policy states that the insured cannot sign without their concent but the insurance company would then need to show that they would have pursued the at fault party. As if they would not have, signing or not signing a release would have not made a different... the outcome would have been the same. That is, the UIMBI carrier cannot deny coverage just because the release was signed without their permission. The UIMBI carrier needs to also show that they were harmed by that action. Otherwise, signing the release changed nothing... the carrier would have allowed it anyway.Uninsured Motorist is always a coverage option in the policy, but I seldom see Underinsured motorist coverages
I've never seen one without the other. That is, it's refered to as UMBI coverage but UIMBI is included.Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 01:50 am Post Subject:
I've never seen one without the other. That is, it's refered to as UMBI coverage but UIMBI is included.
Todd in my state UM(bi) is required, UIM is not, and very few carry UIM (including me) it's a separate coverage, with a separate premium.Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:18 am Post Subject:
goodmorning tcope, me fenny again with some more questions, hope you don't mind. and also thank you for Lori's input. :lol:
Technically, there is no dollar limit on defense costs.
so an insured with low coverage policy and an insured with a high coverage policy gets the same free defense with no dollar limits, am I right?
The injured person cannot accept it until the UIMBI carrier gives their okay (it's written into the injured person's policy as to protect the UIMBI carriers right of recovery for anything paid under UIMBI).
so even the above statement is written into the injured person's policy, the
attorney can still have the release signed without the okay from the UIMBI carrier, and this action is not illegal, right? and it is not the attorney who signs the release, the attorney asks the injured person to sign the release, am I correct?
oh, and something else, when an injured person gets represented by an attorney, the at fault party's carrier cannot contact the injured person directly, right? how about the injured person's own carrier? can the injured person's own carrier contact the injured person directly since that person is their insured, or the injured person's own carrier has to contact the representing attorney?
I've never seen one without the other. That is, it's refered to as UMBI coverage but UIMBI is included.
is this also the case in California? or is California's UM and UIM something like what Lori talked about? :D
greatly appreciate your inputs.
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 01:14 am Post Subject:
so an insured with low coverage policy and an insured with a high coverage policy gets the same free defense with no dollar limits, am I right?
Yes.so even the above statement is written into the injured person's policy, the attorney can still have the release signed without the okay from the UIMBI carrier, and this action is not illegal, right?
It's "legal" but it's "against" the wording of the policy. An insured has a duty to cooperate but they can't be made to do this and the only time an insurance company should deny a claim for this is when they can show it harmed them in some way. If they would have allowed the BI release to be signed anyway, then doing so without their permission did not change anything. The insurance company can't just use that as an excuse for getting out of paying the UIMBI coverage.and it is not the attorney who signs the release, the attorney asks the injured person to sign the release, am I correct?
It's the injured person who signs the release, yes.
oh, and something else, when an injured person gets represented by an attorney, the at fault party's carrier cannot contact the injured person directly, right?
Well, that could be a grey area. No attorney really allows contact without their consent so adjusters just don't contact the person with out that consent but technically I think an attorney might need to notify the insurance company that they are not to contact their client. But that is a little hyper-technical. Basically, the adjuster should avoid contacting the injured person without consent.
can the injured person's own carrier contact the injured person directly since that person is their insured, or the injured person's own carrier has to contact the representing attorney?
The own person's carrier also cannot contact their insured without permission. Of course, the can and will reserve their right under the policy requiring their insured to cooperate.
is this also the case in California? or is California's UM and UIM something like what Lori talked about?
I don't remember but if Lori said it, its probably correct. :wink:
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 07:05 am Post Subject:
Hi tcope,
No attorney really allows contact without their consent so adjusters just don't contact the person with out that consent but technically I think an attorney might need to notify the insurance company that they are not to contact their client. But that is a little hyper-technical.
I'd just like to know if an attorney is usually needed to send in a written statement notifying the at-fault party's insurance carrier that he has been hired.
Of course, the can and will reserve their right under the policy requiring their insured to cooperate.
So, that means they could meet the insured in the presence of the attorney..am I right!
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 09:45 am Post Subject:
Hi tcope,
The own person's carrier also cannot contact their insured without permission. Of course, the can and will reserve their right under the policy requiring their insured to cooperate.
sorry, I am a bit confused here, so does it mean that the injured person's own carrier could contact the injured person directly since that person is their insured and the carrier have the right under the policy?
Thanks a whole lot tcope :D
Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 04:50 pm Post Subject:
I'd just like to know if an attorney is usually needed to send in a written statement notifying the at-fault party's insurance carrier that he has been hired.
Are you asking if the attorney needs to send the letter or can anyone do it? I guess anyone could do it but I don't see why the attorney would not.So, that means they could meet the insured in the presence of the attorney..am I right!
Yes, it's done all of the time.Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 04:53 pm Post Subject:
sorry, I am a bit confused here, so does it mean that the injured person's own carrier could contact the injured person directly since that person is their insured and the carrier have the right under the policy?
Not sure I understand. If the person is represented the attorney will almost always (probably always) notify everyone that they cannot speak to his/her client with his/her permission. That does not mean that the person's own carrier can not speak to their insured (as their insured has a duty to cooperate) it just means that they have to have the attorneys permission. This usually means the attorney is present at all times.Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:11 am Post Subject:
Goodmorning tcope,
Thank you deeply for your kind replies and for sharing your expertise with us.
Hope you don't mind if I come back later on asking more questions when they come up while I read some other posts. :D
Thank you, thank you, thank you. :D :D :D
Add your comment