by mischa2703 » Wed Dec 03, 2008 01:25 am
In August of 2007, I was injured a bank from a faulty door. When I opened their door to go in, the door swung open really fast and I stopped it from hitting my daughter. I was wearing sandals and the bottom corner of the door went into my toe and pushed the bone into the cartilage. I have had problems with it since and my foot doctor told me I have permanent damage and will always have troubles with it. The banks insurance company paid my doctor bills, but can I sue them for pain and suffering? I can't even go for long walks. It's hard to work when I'm standing cuz of the pain
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 01:28 am Post Subject:
Yes you can sue the bank (only a few states will allow you to sue the insurance company directly). How was the door "faulty". I don't see it opening "really fast" as a fault. This would have more to do with how the person opens the door.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 01:51 am Post Subject:
What did the banks insurance carrier say regarding a pain and suffering claim? Have they formally or in anyway denied it? They paid your medical bills under the med pay coverage I understand that..and there does not have to be any negligence for that coverage to pay. So what has been their stance regarding the liability? apparently they have denied it? :?
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 01:58 am Post Subject:
The door was broke and they didn't have rubber strips at the bottom of the door. They do now.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 02:36 am Post Subject:
ok, so what did the insurance company say about liability and a pain and suffering claim?
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 04:12 am Post Subject: insurance
Ya know,...I thought if a 'major' business had a problem like this, the issue would have to be solved right away. I'm just looking at this as a Safety issue for customers....ya know?
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 08:36 pm Post Subject:
sounds like they did sd..
The door was broke and they didn't have rubber strips at the bottom of the door. They do now.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:30 am Post Subject: insurance
I'm wondering, MISCHA....did you happen to take pictures, of the bank, WITHOUT the rubber strips there? I guess when you're in the middle of the situation, you don't think about it. However.........a picture says a thousand words.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:50 am Post Subject:
THAT is where cell phone pics come in real handy don't even know if you can get one anymore WITHOUT a camera...makes it much easier to capture things before they 'disappear'
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:12 pm Post Subject: HOUSE HIT BY DRUNK DRIVER
My good friend called me at 3 am this morning to tell me that their house was hit by a drunk driver. They had been traveling at an extremely high rate of speed and gone right through a stone wall in front of the house and ended up in the dining room. Their insurance Co. told them that there would be a $1000.00 deductable that they were going to have to pay to get the work started. The whole house is a wreck. Should they get an attorney?
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 09:21 pm Post Subject:
They had been traveling at an extremely high rate of speed and gone right through a stone wall in front of the house and ended up in the dining room.
Your friends or the driver of the vehicle? You use "they" and "their" so many times indiscriminately it's not even funny. Need a scorecard to keep track of the players.
Does the homeowner need an attorney? Not yet. The damage is not the responsibility of the homeowner's insurance company, which is why "they" are being told there is a $1000 deductible. 100% of the cost of repairs is the liability of the person who owns/was driving the car. "They" owe the homeowner 100% of the loss.
That person's insurance is probably not enough to cover the full cost of repairs. So if the homeowner wanted to sue the driver/vehicle owner for the difference between the liability limits and the total cost of repairs, then an attorney would be needed.
To get things going quickly, using your own insurance company to pay for a third-party claim, is often the best course of action. You are only out your deductible, which your insurance company will likely recover for you through subrogation of your claim. Or you can sue the at-fault person for only the deductible amount (not advisable),
When a person pays for things like insurance, and is not at fault for their own damages, letting the insurance company do the work for you can be most efficient. But it's entirely up to you. Hiring an attorney will cause you to lose 30%-40% of whatever settlement is offered -- and unless there are some very deep pockets that can be picked, that's a lose in many cases, not a win.
Add your comment