by Guest » Wed Mar 05, 2008 02:03 am
Dear all, nice to have found this forum.
I have a serious question that I need your advise.
I was involved in a car accident recently and there were severe damage on my car and the other driver's car, the other driver also reported severe personal injury to both my insurance company and their own insurance company. I am thinking at I may be at-fault, but need to wait for adjuster's final investigation.
I have full insurance coverage, my liability coverage for personal injury is 30000 per person and 60000 per accident and my liability coverage for car damage is 25000.
But the other driver hired a lawyer saying that my liability coverage for both personal injury and car damage will not be enough, I think they are planning to sue me and ask for a lot of money, I am worried if they could get a money judgment against me and execute against my property, I have bank accounts, salaries, and a house under my name and my title, will they be able to get additional money from me by execute against my bank accounts, salaries, my house?
Thank you.
I have a serious question that I need your advise.
I was involved in a car accident recently and there were severe damage on my car and the other driver's car, the other driver also reported severe personal injury to both my insurance company and their own insurance company. I am thinking at I may be at-fault, but need to wait for adjuster's final investigation.
I have full insurance coverage, my liability coverage for personal injury is 30000 per person and 60000 per accident and my liability coverage for car damage is 25000.
But the other driver hired a lawyer saying that my liability coverage for both personal injury and car damage will not be enough, I think they are planning to sue me and ask for a lot of money, I am worried if they could get a money judgment against me and execute against my property, I have bank accounts, salaries, and a house under my name and my title, will they be able to get additional money from me by execute against my bank accounts, salaries, my house?
Thank you.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 01:50 pm Post Subject:
[arrggg... I spent about 30 mins typing up some good info and accidentally deleted it. I can only add part of it again]
OP, I'll quickly say that right now there is no _good_ indication that this is a policy limits case. The plaintiff's attorney saying so is _not_ a good indication. Adjusters settle injury cases for $10k when the attorney's initial demand is for 1 million. It's a game that is played as the plaintiff's attorney has no reason not to make everyone think his/her client has a _huge_ claim. Might as well shoot for the stars. It's like buying a car... why would the dealer start with a low price? Of the few claims where suit is filed, only about 3% of those suits ever make it into court. Plaintiff attorneys want to make money. The more work they do, the less they make for that money. This is why most will settle for insurance money. If they are made a _good_ offer, its better for them to take it and move on to the next case. Is it worth spending weeks on depositions and in court just to _maybe_ get a judgement against a person who may or may not ever pay that judgement? Also, in _some_ states, if the verdict is for less then what was offered, the injured person is then responsible for the defendants defense costs. That is not true everywhere though. But its another reason so few cases ever actually go to court.
Your carrier will always provide you a defense! That cost is not connected to nor limited by your policy limits. If your carrier were to offer your policy limits and suit was still filed, your carrier would pay what they needed to in order to provide you legal defense (provide you an attorney).
I _think_ I tend to disagree with some of Lori's information...
I've never heard of a carrier filing a suit against a person who has insurance in order to recover the amount they paid on a loss. 1) It's not cost effective. The carrier would need to pay an attorney several thousand's of dollars and could also end up walking away owing the other parties defense costs if the verdict was less then the limits of the other person's policy. 2) Most carriers are members of Inter-company arbitration. This means they cannot file suit until they have had Inter-company arb make a determination on it and then both carriers are bound by that decision (which makes filing suit in court even more perplexing). 3) If the X carrier filed suit against a person who had insurance, X carrier would not get a dime from the person's carrier until the suit was settled.
I do know that carriers go after people _without_ insurance. This is done all the time. I've still _never_ heard of this being done via suit thought. I see it done by going through the state and having the person's drivers license suspended.
As far as limits... I don't condone low limits but I also don't recommend that a person _only_ consider how much of a loss they could _cause_ when determining what limits to obtain. I am actually saying that a person needs to consider that the liability insurance they are paying for not to protect others, rather themselves. We (as people who work for insurance companies) tell people that they should obtain coverage to protect themselves... after someone get's hit by someone without insurance we tell them, "this is why you should consider paying for collision coverage... to protect yourself". But then we also tell people they should pay for huge liability limits to protect "others"? That is a slight exaduration in order to make people see my point (as no one recommend "huge" limits... only higher limits). Here is where I tie it all in together... my point is that people need to consider the likelyhood that someone will want to turn down their liability limits in order to pursue the insured directly (and in many cases, forgo filing under their _own_ insurance in order to go after the other person directly). If I'm living paycheck to paycheck and have a hard time putting food on the table, perhaps I want to consider lower liability limits. Again, I'm not condoning lower limits.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 07:43 pm Post Subject:
I do know that carriers go after people _without_ insurance. This is done all the time. I've still _never_ heard of this being done via suit thought. I see it done by going through the state and having the person's drivers license suspended.
yeah tcope we've discussed this before, and apparently this is state/company dependent...as I was a subro specialist the first year I worked in claims, it was my responsiblity to file small claims actions, as well as hire local attorneys to secure judgements for physical damage claims as well as UM claims (which is subrogatible in my state)...I assure you I'm not making it up! :roll: :lol: Then once I (thru the atty or in small claims) secured the judgement I could file a garnishment...you cannot (in my state) file a garnishment without a judgement....you can file a state report and pull the guys license, but that does nothing as far as collecting on the debt....[arrggg... I spent about 30 mins typing up some good info and accidentally deleted it. I can only add part of it again]
ah dude, I've done that way too many times...it SUCKS BAD... :evil: :(Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 06:51 am Post Subject:
Attorneys go for the easy money. If they know their client has UIM coverage, which believe me, they know, they'll advise to try for max limits on yours and max the UIM. They'll then take 33% and walk away happy with little work done. Also, in your case, the attorney is gong to have to show you at-fault and most excess payouts involve gross negligence.
I would just let the motions take place. As for your umbrella questions.
can I still add Umbrella liability insurance or raise my auto policy liability limits now? or it is already too late since I have a claim pending investigation?
You can never buy coverage for an event that has already happened.
When purchasing an umbrella policy, you must max out your underlying policy's liability limits. Most companies require you carry 100/300/100 on your auto and 300k on your home policy before you can obtain an umbrella policy. Being and "excess liability" policy, it is designed to cover the excess that your already high underlying limits can't. I don't believe your company will allow you to even purchase an umbrella policy while you still have an open liability claim.
If it is already too late for me to either add Umbrella liability insurance or raise my auto policy liability limits now, when will I be able to do so?
You should be able to raise your auto liability limits, but it will not affect how much you were insured for at the time of the accident. Insurance companies generally do not let you backdate coverage changes.
How much more does it usually cost to add Umbrella liability insurance or raise my auto policy liability limits to like Lori recommended 100k/300/100k?
You'd probably be surprised how cheap it can be. Of course, both policies will be rated based on your driving history and age. I think once this claim is over, cost will not be an issue when you look back at the uncertainty low liability limits can create.
Sometimes it take a scare to realize the true benefits of insurance and having people to take care of the headaches.
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 07:17 am Post Subject:
We (as people who work for insurance companies) tell people that they should obtain coverage to protect themselves...
But then we also tell people they should pay for huge liability limits to protect "others"?
Everyone is clearly entitled to carry the coverages they feel comfortable with and I see your point, but I have to disagree.
I see it this way and generally others feel this way. I care what happens to someone else, should I hit and injure them. I've seen all too many times, people in bad shape financially because someone had an attitude of "I'm not worth anything, so sue me". Morally, I beleive that most people want to carry higher coverages to take care of someone they may injure. But I know some need to watch costs and that's why I try to find somewhere in the middle for them.
I have a friend who has a $75,000 judgement against him. In Texas, only child support or IRS can garnish wages and many people also bring it up when swearing they only need minimum limits. He can never finance anything. He has to pay cash for everything because banks will not loan him money with the judgement sitting over his head. If it could be avoided, why not protect yourself.
after someone get's hit by someone without insurance we tell them, "this is why you should consider paying for collision coverage... to protect yourself".
An insurance policy serves several purposes. To protect your liabilities and to protect your vehicles and yourself. So, in essence, you're correct. If a policy offers you 2 methods of protection, why not take advantage of it.
In the end, the question each and every insured should ask themselves is, how much can you afford to lose.
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:53 am Post Subject:
When purchasing an umbrella policy, you must max out your underlying policy's liability limits.
Now see I didn't know that! Thanks MB, (don't know that I handled more that two of these claims in my life)...So what you are saying is a person must purchase the highest limits allowed for that particular policy before you can even purchase an umbrella?RE: low vs high or higer limits...MB I agree (for me) I want to avoid the possiblity of a worry...I do not carry the highest but they are up there, for the reasons you state...again it's a personal choice all the way.
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 06:01 am Post Subject:
It differs by company, but the lowest amount of minimum limits allowed on the primary policy is 100/300/100. Many are going to 250/500/100 or 500 CSL. The carriers want to make sure the primary policy covers as much as possible before the excess policy kicks in. This also allows them the opportunity to settle most claims before the umbrella is even discussed.
If it's found that you lowered your underlying limits while carrying the umbrella and the insurer was not informed, you can be held liable for the difference between your max auto limits, and the minimum umbrella limits.
ie. you go to 50/100/50 and have a 500k single BI claim. If the required minimum is 100/300/100, you can be held liable for the 50k between your 50k BI limit and the 100k required limit.
If you have an umbrella, you should never mention you have it. It should be your"just in case" policy.
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:15 am Post Subject:
Great info MB, in you state (assuming you have the required limits) will an umbrella kick in on an auto claim then?
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 09:42 am Post Subject:
Dear Lori, tcope, MBTexas, and all,
Thank you very much for all of your information and sharing your valuable expertise. I am currently out of town on a work related issue, it was a short notice that I have to go to cover one of my co-workers, sorry that I don't have my own laptop with me and I finally got to use someone elses laptop to access this forum.
I still have some questions that I need your help, I will be back soon, in the meantime, wish you all a very happy week. :)
Regards,
Linda
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:08 am Post Subject:
We'll be here! :wink:
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 04:17 pm Post Subject:
in you state (assuming you have the required limits) will an umbrella kick in on an auto claim then?
Yes. The umbrella protects your liability over Auto, Home, Motorcycles, ATV's, etc... After your underlying limits have been met. Think of an umbrella as, well, an umbrella that reaches out over you and your assets.
Now there are few instances where there isn't a policy you can purchase for something you might be liable for. In those cases, there is generally a set deductible like $1,000. These are very rare instances since most situations can be insured by a primary policy of some sort.
Add your comment