by Guest » Fri Apr 11, 2008 04:47 pm
I was involved in car crash in Florida . I am at fault , I feel very bad abt it . Unfortunately i didn't had BI Coverage. After 3 years, now i am getting calls ONLY so far, from the otherside insurance company to pay the med bills ( big amount ) other wise they are saying that they would be suing.
They said they are reaching me since i didn't had any BI coverage with my insurance company .
After 3 years can they still claim according to FL rules ?.
Is there any way to that i can reduce the amount , the i can't pay the amt they are asking .
I need some guidance .
Appreciate your answers and thanks in advance for your kind attention.
seek.
They said they are reaching me since i didn't had any BI coverage with my insurance company .
After 3 years can they still claim according to FL rules ?.
Is there any way to that i can reduce the amount , the i can't pay the amt they are asking .
I need some guidance .
Appreciate your answers and thanks in advance for your kind attention.
seek.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 01:26 pm Post Subject:
Is that how it works in Florida?
Not exactly. I've never seen a Florida policy without BI as most (if not all) carriers will flat out tell you that BI is required. I mentioned in one thread that USAA even told me it was required. I mentioned this as they train their employes very well and FL requires their agents to be licenses (it's not easy to pass). So you can see that almost everyone things BI _is_ required.
UM is not a requirement on an insurance policy but I don't know of any state that _requires_ that it be. UMBI is offered in Florida, as it is in almost every state.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 06:29 pm Post Subject:
UM is not a requirement on an insurance policy but I don't know of any state that _requires_ that it be.
Oregon requires that all liability insurance policies contain UMBI coverage at a 25/50 minimum level. When considering that (depending on what you look at) anywhere from 15-38% of all drivers on Oregon roads do not carry coverage, UMBI would be really important.
Check out this link if you're interested:
http://www.cbs.state.or.us/ins/publications/consumer/2085.pdf
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 07:13 pm Post Subject:
Yup, I agree. But what also needs to be considered by the state is the person's responsiblity in protecting themselves and weighting this against the cost of insurance (I wonder if OR ever thought that by requiring UMBI, at an additional charge, some people just could not afford to pay for the required coverage so they drive without any insurance). If BI is required the injured party already has access to the minimum set up by the state. Why should the state tell the injured party that they _have_ to pay to offer themselves _additional_ protection (in excess of what the state mandates)? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. If the state thinks people need more protection, increase the BI limits!
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:28 am Post Subject:
MO also requires PD/BI and UMBI....really tcope I think the majority rather than minority of states REQUIRE UMBI...I'll check but I really think so...
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 05:43 pm Post Subject:
tcope wrote:
If BI is required the injured party already has access to the minimum set up by the state. Why should the state tell the injured party that they _have_ to pay to offer themselves _additional_ protection (in excess of what the state mandates)? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. If the state thinks people need more protection, increase the BI limits!
First off, you're suggesting that everyone with a registered vehicle and those drivers with access to the vehicle actually carries liability coverage. Again- the number state that only 62-85% actually carry BI. It's not a matter of the state requiring higher limits for those who actually carry coverage, it's a simple matter that a whole bunch of people don't have any insurance period!
Lori said:
MO also requires PD/BI and UMBI....really tcope I think the majority rather than minority of states REQUIRE UMBI...I'll check but I really think so...
I would agree- I have dealt with many different states in my insurance life, and just about all require UMBI. On the other hand- UMPD is pretty much optional everywhere. Just my twenty-seven cents.... (what I'll earn on this post! :? )
In the absence of BI coverage in force for the at-fault party, who (or what) is going to pay for the injuries to the other party? PIP? Sure, it'll pay, but only to the policy limits, and only pays medical for one year max.
Don't confuse (tcope, I don't think you are, just gotta cover my bases) UNinsured Motorist Bodily Injury with UNDERinsured Motorist Bodily Injury. By mandating the purchase of UMBI, the state has "confessed" (so to speak) that it's aware that there are a lot of uninsured drivers out there and wants people to have at least SOME protection in the event they are injured by an uninsured moron. They also offer UMPD, which is cheap protection in the event the uninsured idiot damages the vehicle as well.
The premium cost for UMBI is pretty cheap here. I pay about $21 every 6 months for $500k UMBI, and if you go to minimum limits (25/50), the cost is only about $12 per policy period.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 09:38 am Post Subject:
Yeah, every agent in FL will tell you BI is required even though it's not. It's silly not to have BI. It's very little extra to at least have 10k.
Oh my gosh! Is PIP subrogatible?
In certain circumstances you can subrogate PIP coverage. It's rare when you can but I did subrogation for a carrier for a few years and ever so often, I could get PIP back.
I'll look for the details on when it is.
As for them calling you and trying to get money. If you are at fault (it looks like you agree you were) they have every right to contact you to get their money they paid out within the timeline. I thought they have 5 years if theirs medical bills involved but I guess it's 4 per the posts above.
I would have people sign promisary notes all the time. My thing with those are they are worthless for the most part for the company. I would tell them if they were more than 30 days late on it, we would proceed to file suit.
One thing you can do to try and reduce it is have an attorney or someone you know that knows medical billings well and have them send you all the paperwork and supporting information on their payments. You may be able to get them to come down if you can find payments that might not have been necessary based on the injuries.
Also, this claim is old and most companies will settle with you. If you make monthly payments, companies won't give you a break. But if you can afford a lump sum, you'll find a lot of companies will settle for about 2/3 the amount. They typically pay attorneys 33% fee for collecting and getting their money anyways so if they can get the 2/3 without going through collections agency and file they will.
Don't just ask them to reduce the amount because you can't afford to pay it. Make good solid arguments that they shouldn't have paid as much as they did by reviewing information they send you. Look through it, research the injury and see how long they should have gotten treatment and see if it matches their history of visits. Research the costs for the treatments and make sure they weren't ridiculous prices for their visits as well.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 09:40 am Post Subject:
About the PIP Subrogation. Everywhere you look it says no but there's a loophole if the auto that's at fault was a business policy and they hit a personal policy because of the way some business policies read. I only had 2 times in 3 years I saw this come up and don't remember the exact circumstances but we did subrogate PIP on it.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 09:56 am Post Subject:
In that case (pip not subrogatible) then the injured party must be coming after bills that pip didn't cover or over the limit, and pain and suffering....right?
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:20 am Post Subject:
I'm not even sure as it was 2 claims that I saw briefly 5 years ago. Probably would never come across it again just like a continuous lake flood claim.
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:56 am Post Subject:
First off, you're suggesting that everyone with a registered vehicle and those drivers with access to the vehicle actually carries liability coverage. Again- the number state that only 62-85% actually carry BI. It's not a matter of the state requiring higher limits for those who actually carry coverage, it's a simple matter that a whole bunch of people don't have any insurance period!
No wanting to get too off-topic... I was not saying that UMBI should not be available, I was saying it should not be required by the state. It should be up to the person as to if they want to pay to protect themselves to the extent that someone else is not following the laws. Also, if the state mandated UMBI it seems like they are just passing on the expense of it's own people not following the laws to it's own citizens. That is, the state appears to be doing a poor job of enforcing it's own insurance laws so they just make it's own citizens pay for coverage to compensate.In certain circumstances you can subrogate PIP coverage. It's rare when you can but I did subrogation for a carrier for a few years and ever so often, I could get PIP back.
Yes, some states allow for this. I'm in UT and PIP is recoverable. I makes no sense, but it is.About the PIP Subrogation. Everywhere you look it says no but there's a loophole if the auto that's at fault was a business policy and they hit a personal policy because of the way some business policies read.
This might be a state law (but I doubt it) or more likely something else actually took place. State laws would allow for recovery, the wording of a policy would not change this. I'm betting you are referring to something like the driver having to collect from his/her own PIP, not the companies PIP (many states, the PIP follows the person, not the vehicle as long as the person has PIP)Add your comment