by Guest » Mon Sep 06, 2010 01:51 am
My Gransparents were in an accident last year during which they were hit by a drunk driver. My grandfather passed while my grandmother watched and she suffered a broken neck among other serious injuries.
They had two car insurances (I know unusual but true). Two things are happening that do not sound right- 1. The insurance companies are splitting the payout rather than each of them paying, and 2. One of the insurance companies has contacted my grandfather's son via letter stating that the payout for my granfather's wrongful death needs to agreed on how it will be divided. Why wouldn't my grandmother get the settlement? What right does the insurance company have contacting this man when my granfather had nothing to do with him?
The insurance company is saying that because it's a wrongful death the heirs have to agree to how the payout will be split. My grandfather's will left everything to my grandmother. We have asked the insurance company for the statute but were told to call the other insurance company involved.
Can someone with some auto insurance law background help me out, please?
They had two car insurances (I know unusual but true). Two things are happening that do not sound right- 1. The insurance companies are splitting the payout rather than each of them paying, and 2. One of the insurance companies has contacted my grandfather's son via letter stating that the payout for my granfather's wrongful death needs to agreed on how it will be divided. Why wouldn't my grandmother get the settlement? What right does the insurance company have contacting this man when my granfather had nothing to do with him?
The insurance company is saying that because it's a wrongful death the heirs have to agree to how the payout will be split. My grandfather's will left everything to my grandmother. We have asked the insurance company for the statute but were told to call the other insurance company involved.
Can someone with some auto insurance law background help me out, please?
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 04:20 am Post Subject:
As you have then numbered:
1) Keep in mind that this is a function of the polices that the other person has... it has nothing to do with liability or what is owed. Of both of those policies are "primary" (and I'm guessing that they are) they _probably_ read that the limits will be split up to the highest of one policy.
2)My question to this is how they even knew about a grandchild. That is, obviously _someone_ informed them of this person. As such, I'm they might be under the impression that he is handling the matter for his grandparents. It's certainly not unusual that another family member would step up and handle it under such circumstances. If your grandmother is going to handle this matter, have her call the adjuster and let them know.
I've had many situations where another family member will call me and I'll initially deal with this person. Then, all of a sudden, someone else will call me and tell me that this is incorrect. Well, how was I supposed to know. Don't yell at me.
Again, I'd go back to my question on how the adjuster even knew about the grandson and I'm betting you will find that the adjuster was lead to think this person would be handling the matter.
The insurance company is saying that because it's a wrongful death the heirs have to agree to how the payout will be split. My grandfather's will left everything to my grandmother. We have asked the insurance company for the statute but were told to call the other insurance company involved.
The person in charge of the estate needs to handle this matter. If this is only your grandmother and she wants to handle the situation, then she needs to provide the court documents to the adjuster showing that she is handling the estate. I'm _guessing_ the adjuster is considering that more then one person may be a beneficiary and as such the adjusters statement would be correct, if it was one person or more ("the heirs have to agree to how the payout will be split").Feel free to have who ever is handling this matter on your end ask both carriers if they would send a letter to you quoting the policy language stating how the two polices interact with each other. Ask them to send a copy of the page for review. The adjuster _might_ not want to do this but point out if you don't get it, a lawsuit _will_ be filed and at that point a copy of the policy can be obtained through the discovery process. Point out that they don't want suit to be filed as then a excess judgment _will_ be obtained against their insured and then their insured _will_ file a Bad Faith suit against them. In order to avoid all of this... simply send a copy of that portion of the policy.
Once you obtain this information you _may_ want to speak to an attorney and see if he/she thinks that they can collect more then just the higher of the two limits.
Also, does your grandfather have Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury coverage? If so, you need to put them on notice and not accept the BI payment until your grandparent's insurance company states that it's okay to accept.
Again, in this situation I'd probably speak to an attorney once you have a copy of the policies to see if they think they can collect _more_. If they can only collect the policy limits then there is no point in paying them 33% of that as it's going to be offered up anyway.
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:58 am Post Subject:
1. The insurance companies are splitting the payout rather than each of them paying,
Just because there is more than one policy in force, it does not mean that one could collect equally, and fully, from both. The general purpose of insurance is to "indemnify" -- pay for one's losses, up to 100%, but not to provide a "profit". When more than one policy applies to a loss (unusual in auto insurance, but common in health insurance), one policy must be determined to be "primary". [But why is this claim not being "prosecuted" through the at-fault party's insurance company? Could it be that he only has minimum liability coverage? Or, worse, no insurance at all?
When more than one coverage applies, paying a claim is usually split on the basis of total premium paid. The policy with the higher premium may be primary. If the two policies have identical premiums (also unusual), then the policy which was in force the longest (i.e., had the most premium paid over time) may be primary. If the policies both cover the same loss, then the claims payment will be split accordingly, up to 100% of the claims payable. 50-50, 60-40, 70-30, doesn't matter, it will not add up to more than 100.
They had two car insurances . . . . 2. One of the insurance companies has contacted my grandfather's son via letter stating that the payout for my granfather's wrongful death needs to agreed on how it will be divided.
I'm not sure which insurance company/companies you are bring into the discussion with this question. You may be confusing which company has responsibility for which claim.
So I have a problem with this statement. If your grandparents had more than one auto policy covering the same vehicle, that's an inadvertent mistake (discussed above) -- a single agent would never have allowed that to happen. Do-it-yourself insurance, or using two different agents could be the reason.
But neither of these policies is going to be responsible for paying a "wrongful death" claim. That's entirely the responsibility of the at-fault party and his insurance company. So I don't know if that's the company you're referring to or not. Your later statement about one insurance company telling you to call another may be a very correct piece of advice.
I'm concerned. You speak of your "Grandfather's son" as if he were not your uncle. Perhaps Grandma has asked him to assist her. My 86-year old mother usually asks me for advice about her insurance, not either of my sisters, since I'm the one who has a license. I'm assuming Uncle is older and wiser than others she might have asked for help. And I'm also a bit puzzled why you're even involved in wondering why two things are happening that you don't understand and don't know if they are proper. Are you reading someone else's mail?
How would you even know about a question of "splitting" the payment? This sounds like a back room conversation between heirs, who might later be known as "disgruntled", not a conversation started by an insurance company.
A conversation about payment for a "wrongful death" usually does not start with an insurance company, either. In a wrongful death action such as this, it could be that a lawyer would ask for all of the proceeds to be paid to a surviving spouse. On the other hand, if Grandmother is very elderly, doesn't expect to live much longer, and the amount of money is substantial, it might be wiser to choose to include dividing some of it among Grandfather's children (your aunts and uncles), in which case it would not pose a tax issue, instead of Grandmother receiving all the money, later doling it out after her death, but in which case it might be subject to estate taxes, diminishing the value to everyone else.
If Grandmother had also died in the collision, then state probate laws might have other things to say about the money. But that's not the case, since Grandmother did not die (then or yet).
As with many posts here, there are just enough important details missing to make any response we might post seem just as vague.
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 05:20 pm Post Subject: response
The driver of the other car was not insured and the two insurances were held by my grandparents. My grandmother is the sole beneficiary to her husband's will. My mother has power of attorney to act for my grandmother. My granfather's son was not even in the will. I do not call him uncle because in the past 45 years of my grandparents marriage I have never met this man (although my grandfather is the only grandfather I have ever known my biological grandfather passed when my mother was a teenager).
My grandfather's son (Mark) was contacted by the insurance companies to offer a split and my grandmother was NEVER contacted by her own insurance companies. It seems as though Mark has involved himself.
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 08:43 pm Post Subject:
The driver of the other car was not insured and the two insurances were held by my grandparents
This makes a _big_ difference! You are now talking about either PIP/MP (Personal Injury Protection/Medical Payments) and/or UMBI (Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury) coverage if I'm to guess. If you'd be more clear about this it would help.I"m going to guess and say for some reason there are two UMBI policies and that UMBI does not stack in the your grandmothers state.
It seems as though Mark has involved himself.
There you have it... I'm betting Mark has been the only one to call the insurance company and given the adjuster the impression that he will be handling everything. This is probably why the adjuster has not called your Grandmother... he does not want to be "the insurance company" that calls a widow right after an accident and make her upset.If your grandmother is executor of the estate and she wants to handle the matter then she needs to call the adjuster. To me it sounds like the adjuster has told Mark that he/she needs copies of documents showing who this person is so that he can know who needs to sign the paperwork and who he needs to pay.
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 05:04 am Post Subject:
The driver of the other car was not insured and the two insurances were held by my grandparents.
As tcope has said, this makes a difference. But it will still not result in a "wrongful death" settlement from either of the two insurance companies on your grandmother's side. Wrongful death is a third-party action. And in this case, the third party has no insurance so the damage award would come from his personal assets, which are likely to be nil or close to it.
Med Pay or PIP coverage (depending on the policies) is about all there is to collect, on top of the physical damage claim to the vehicle.
Again, so sorry for your grandmother's loss. Don't know how (uncle) Mark got into the mix.
Add your comment