by Dube » Thu Aug 13, 2009 02:09 am
I'm taking a Florida insurance course online & have another question. Here is what is said:
The way in which UM recoveries are based upon ones tort rights may be illustrated by example:
Fred, permanently injured by Mark in an accident, has total damages valued at 50,000. Fred has PIP & has recovered the full $10,000 limits, & has UM coverage with a limit of 100,000. Mark has liability with limits 10/20/10.
Fred’s UM recovery is 30,000: the 50,000 in damages - 10,000 recovered from PIP - 10,000 available from Mark’s liability.
Note the example states Fred was permanently injured. As UM relates to Fred’s tort rights against Mark, Fred would have to pierce the no-fault threshold for the measurement of recoverable damages to include any noneconomic loss...
My question is, Fred has permanent injury & has pierced the no-fault threshold so why cant he get pain & suffering???
The way in which UM recoveries are based upon ones tort rights may be illustrated by example:
Fred, permanently injured by Mark in an accident, has total damages valued at 50,000. Fred has PIP & has recovered the full $10,000 limits, & has UM coverage with a limit of 100,000. Mark has liability with limits 10/20/10.
Fred’s UM recovery is 30,000: the 50,000 in damages - 10,000 recovered from PIP - 10,000 available from Mark’s liability.
Note the example states Fred was permanently injured. As UM relates to Fred’s tort rights against Mark, Fred would have to pierce the no-fault threshold for the measurement of recoverable damages to include any noneconomic loss...
My question is, Fred has permanent injury & has pierced the no-fault threshold so why cant he get pain & suffering???
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:52 am Post Subject:
I guess the worth of his financial loss has to be established before the tort liability action can be brought. Does Fred posses any document that supports his piercing the no-fault threshold?
Add your comment