FYI: Insurance coverage!!!

[gtstwincam]

Just to post a thread here:

If you own property or are driving under your parents insurance, make sure the Property damage limits are at least $100,000.00

On your policy, check the "BIPD".

It should read 15/30/5, 25/50/25, 50/100/50, 100/300/100, 500/500/500, etc.


The last number is the property damage.

If I remember correctly, the minimum requirement for california is $5k.


Can you imagine rearending a $50,000.00 mercedes or bmw and your insurance only pays $5k towards damage? What if you totalled the car?

Get ready to be sued!!!!

Again, raise your property damage limits. Its not much more..


I work in claims and saw someone get sued for all his assets because he totalled 3 cars, injured all the passengers of each vehicle and only had $5k limits...

Attorneys were inquiring whether the person had an "umbrella policy".

Attorneys were also speaking with the "ex wife" about her home..

[da1ndonly]

damn sucks for that guy. I was also recently in an accident and my dad had been lagging on putting me on the insurance until after so now i have to also pay for the other ladys bumper even though it looked like nothing had happend to it damn. at least it wasnt that bad

[kdashy]

Yeah I have 150K property. And it doesn't cost that much more for it too.

But this really needs to be in off topic.

[gtstwincam]

Originally Posted by kdashy

Yeah I have 150K property. And it doesn't cost that much more for it too.

But this really needs to be in off topic.

how do we move this to the offtopic?

[shadow_s13]

A Moderator.........

[Bushido]

what about if you don't own anything in your name? I rent, am i invincible?

[alkemyst]

I have 100/300/100 insurance now, this wasn't really much more than the minimum, had to also growing up and it sucked when I was a kid when dollars mattered.

That said...if you have assets beyond what you are covered for; by all means insure higher. If they choose to sue you they USUALLY cannot go after your policy also. It really doesn't matter if you own property other than this is usually the biggest asset anyone has had.

With this insane property market though, a lot of high rollers are renting and thinking they can now drop insurance coverage since they don't own houses.

I am predicting a lot of liens/garnishing applied to these people.

Insurance is the freaking epitome of a love / hate relationship.

[GSXRJJordan]

I also carry 100/300/100 coverage, and I don't own shit.

My biggest asset is my future income, and I wouldn't want it garnished for the next 10 years because I happen to run through a house/etc.

[S14DB]

If you guys own a house or something then get a high property damage. If you don't have nothing but your car then fuck it. The odds of you taking out a porsche and then being at fault are really high. If you have nothing to your name, no one is going to sue you cause you have nothing to sue for. You can just declare bankruptcy. No lawyer is going to waste his time with a kid that has $5k in assets. If you have a $100k insurance policy or a $250k house then he may be a little more interested in bending you over. Can't take blood from a stone.

I love how you work for the Insurance Company. Cause this is the same BS that they tried to spew on me when I turned 18 and got my own insurance. I told them that I didn't have crap in my name and what can they sue me for. They agreed after I laid it out like that.


I will however say if you don't have health insurance to look at your PIP or injury coverage. Cause you don't want to get kicked out of the hospital after a crash cause you have no coverage.

[gtstwincam]

Originally Posted by S14DB

If you guys own a house or something then get a high property damage. If you don't have nothing but your car then fuck it. The odds of you taking out a porsche and then being at fault are really high. If you have nothing to your name, no one is going to sue you cause you have nothing to sue for. You can just declare bankruptcy. No lawyer is going to waste his time with a kid that has $5k in assets. If you have a $100k insurance policy or a $250k house then he may be a little more interested in bending you over. Can't take blood from a stone.

I love how you work for the Insurance Company. Cause this is the same BS that they tried to spew on me when I turned 18 and got my own insurance. I told them that I didn't have crap in my name and what can they sue me for. They agreed after I laid it out like that.


I will however say if you don't have health insurance to look at your PIP or injury coverage. Cause you don't want to get kicked out of the hospital after a crash cause you have no coverage.

Oooooooooooooookay.

[g6civcx]

Originally Posted by S14DB

If you don't have nothing but your car then fuck it. The odds of you taking out a porsche and then being at fault are really high. If you have nothing to your name, no one is going to sue you cause you have nothing to sue for. You can just declare bankruptcy. No lawyer is going to waste his time with a kid that has $5k in assets.

I personally would sue anyone regardless of how much money they have. Your personal financial situation is really nobody's business. You did something wrong. Now you have to be found guildty.

If nothing else, you can always garnish future wages for the rest of the person's life.

[gtstwincam]

Originally Posted by g6civcx

I personally would sue anyone regardless of how much money they have. Your personal financial situation is really nobody's business. You did something wrong. Now you have to be found guildty.

If nothing else, you can always garnish future wages for the rest of the person's life.

..............+1

[aNskY]

Originally Posted by g6civcx

If nothing else, you can always garnish future wages for the rest of the person's life.

yes, and bankruptcy wont rid that, or child support, or student loans. sorry s14db

[alkemyst]

You have to be in a pretty special situation to get a garnishment and you can't take more than they need to survive which makes this tricky on even middle class people.

The idea of this thread though was how to protect ones self. If you carry 100/300/100 most courts will deem that adequate and not allow other liens

[BustedS13]

fuck that. i've got full, decent coverage right now, and i don't see the value. when the 240 rolls again, it's going on the most barebones shitty insurance i can find.

[g6civcx]

Originally Posted by alkemyst

You have to be in a pretty special situation to get a garnishment and you can't take more than they need to survive which makes this tricky on even middle class people

That's not the point. I said that I would personally sue. Most people wouldn't want to spend attorney fee, but I'm in court every day so it's no big deal.

Originally Posted by alkemyst

The idea of this thread though was how to protect ones self. If you carry 100/300/100 most courts will deem that adequate and not allow other liens

I hear you. I used to be an auto claims adjustor and now I work in insurance litigation. It's really difficult to anticipate what a judge will do. So the only thing I can do is ask for slightly more than what I think is reasonably owed.

If anyone has any specific question about legal procedures feel to ask.

Thanks everyone for your effort.

Originally Posted by BustedS13

i've got full, decent coverage right now, and i don't see the value

"Full coverage" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as full coverage. What you do have is different types of coverage and limits on each type.

You can insure each line coverage with a limit from $1 to $infinity.

So by definition of the types of coverage and the line limit, there is no such thing as "full coverage".


Use your terminology carefully because it demonstrates what you do/don't know.

[alkemyst]

Originally Posted by g6civcx

That's not the point. I said that I would personally sue. Most people wouldn't want to spend attorney fee, but I'm in court every day so it's no big deal.

If you are going to get the limits of the policy you are putting about 30% of that into your attorney's pocket + expenses which I have found by experience usually ends up being about 50% of the pot.

If you are going to sue beyond the limits of the policy, you cannot also take it as well. If the defendant can't stroke you a check (extremely rare that they can) you are looking at having to pay your attorney and wait possibly forever for a payout.

Only in special circumstances should one need an attorney in an insurance settlement. Your agent has them already looking to get you as much as possible from the other carrier to avoid themselves needing to payout.

If you are dealing with non-A rated companies YMMV.

Originally Posted by g6civcx

"Full coverage" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as full coverage. What you do have is different types of coverage and limits on each type.

You can insure each line coverage with a limit from $1 to .

So by definition of the types of coverage and the line limit, there is no such thing as "full coverage".

Well that's really semantics. Most would agree full coverage is liability and comprehensive/collision...it's not really the limits.

Also not many companies let you pick your own tiers nor vary them across the board. Like with most you can't put one amount for your own property damage/liability and try to use a higher amount for non-insured motorists. The reasons are more than likely getting some poor sap to purposely hit you and then make a claim and cut them in on the back end.

Originally Posted by g6civcx

Use your terminology carefully because it demonstrates what you do/don't know.

depends on your audience as well.

[g6civcx]

Originally Posted by alkemyst

If you are going to get the limits of the policy you are putting about 30% of that into your attorney's pocket + expenses which I have found by experience usually ends up being about 50% of the pot.

If you are going to sue beyond the limits of the policy, you cannot also take it as well. If the defendant can't stroke you a check (extremely rare that they can) you are looking at having to pay your attorney and wait possibly forever for a payout.

Only in special circumstances should one need an attorney in an insurance settlement. Your agent has them already looking to get you as much as possible from the other carrier to avoid themselves needing to payout.

If you are dealing with non-A rated companies YMMV.

While I agree with what you say, I was referring to my personal situation. Attorney fees are no big deal for me and I always like to fight the good fight.

It's like an average person looking at an engine swap vs. a pro mechanic. Since I do it every day, it's no big deal to get an attorney to sit in with me in an advisory position. I can represent myself (anyone can), but it's good to have counsel so you don't look foolish representing yourself. Plus one of my co-workers would probably be glad to sit in and get some easy money and have me do all of the work. I can write briefs and examine evidence as well as any attorney, I think, but I do not want to present oral arguments on my own behalf because doing so pretty much means you're insane. Even lawyers have lawyers representing them.

The same cannot be said about everyone, which is why I said "personally", which means it would only apply to me and no one else.

You also cannot generalise attorney fees because the fee structure depends on the individual attorney and the merits of the case and the client. All you can do is speculate the industry norm.


Also, the defendant's insurance limit and ability to pay is really not my concern. I'm concerned if he can pay, but I'm just fighting to get as much as possible for myself within the boundary of the system. It's no my concern to worry about how he's going to pay for his mistakes.

What you're advocating goes against the free market system. In the US, if you screw up, you pay damages commensurate to your liability and fair market prices. While it's true that rich people can just cut a check and walk away, just because you're poor doesn't mean you get an easy pass either. You pay fair market price for what you did.

I'm blind to the person's personal financial situation, like I said above. I think this is the only fair thing to do.

By the same token of your argument, if you have a rich defendant, you can also claim damages far beyond what's fair thinking that "he's rich, he can afford it". I really really don't believe this is fair. You pay fair market value. No more. No less, and regardless of who you are or how much money you have.

Originally Posted by alkemyst

Well that's really semantics. Most would agree full coverage is liability and comprehensive/collision...it's not really the limits.

Since you've already admitted that full != limits, and since there no way to get to the limit, full coverage doesn't exist.

Most people say pencil lead when they mean graphite, tin foil when they mean aluminium foil, power steering when they mean power-assisted steering, etc.

Misnomer = a wrong name or inappropriate designation according to Webster

Everybody knows what you mean, but the word is still a minomer because the plain meaning of the word itself doesn't describe the thing. In this case, full actually means state-required limits or somewhere around there. We all know what you mean, but that doesn't stop the word full coverage from being a misnomer.

Everything is semantics.


But seriously, I've made the same argument in a case that's on appeal to the federal court right now. We'll see how they rule.

Originally Posted by alkemyst

Also not many companies let you pick your own tiers nor vary them across the board. Like with most you can't put one amount for your own property damage/liability and try to use a higher amount for non-insured motorists. The reasons are more than likely getting some poor sap to purposely hit you and then make a claim and cut them in on the back end.

This is entirely dependent on the carrier and beyond anybody else's control.

As for antiselection (false claims like you described), carriers will always have to deal with this issue regardless of the fee and coverage structure.

Originally Posted by alkemyst

depends on your audience as well.

I hear you, but also at the same time I try to educate as much as possible. Pick your words carefully because sometimes words have double meanings and meanings you didn't anticipate.

It's always better to use plain words with plain meanings than to risk using a minomer that may show that you don't know as much.


I work in health care and insurance, probably the two highest regulated industries in the US. The only other industry that has as much regulation as these would probably be banking.

We are not even scratching the surface of everything that's possible.

If you want to go in-depth, feel free to ask.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by g6civcx

That's not the point. I said that I would personally sue. Most people wouldn't want to spend attorney fee, but I'm in court every day so it's no big deal.



I hear you. I used to be an auto claims adjustor and now I work in insurance litigation. It's really difficult to anticipate what a judge will do. So the only thing I can do is ask for slightly more than what I think is reasonably owed.

If anyone has any specific question about legal procedures feel to ask.

Thanks everyone for your effort.




"Full coverage" is a misnomer. There is no such thing as full coverage. What you do have is different types of coverage and limits on each type.

You can insure each line coverage with a limit from $1 to .

So by definition of the types of coverage and the line limit, there is no such thing as "full coverage".


Use your terminology carefully because it demonstrates what you do/don't know.

full coverage = not liability insurance
you = blah blah blah

[silpena]

i have 50k in property but i have at least 500k in health i think i'm not sure my parents set it up. Its becuase a friend of theres didn't have a good health damage protection that they hav to pay it all. Shes been paying it for like 25 years now and still paying.

[grnappletree14]

my friend rear ended some one and he only had 5k limit, she is sueing him for 30k, she complaining that her back hurts and stuff like that.

[alkemyst]

Originally Posted by g6civcx

Since you've already admitted that full != limits, and since there no way to get to the limit, full coverage doesn't exist.

Most people say pencil lead when they mean graphite, tin foil when they mean aluminium foil, power steering when they mean power-assisted steering, etc.

Misnomer = a wrong name or inappropriate designation according to Webster

Because you are assuming full = $ amount, EVERYONE ELSE knows it just means not only are your and your passengers/property protected, but also your vehicle.

You should get one of the partners at your practice to take these misnomers up and sue everyone that is referring to things in ways that confuse you...think of the profit man.

Originally Posted by g6civcx

But seriously, I've made the same argument in a case that's on appeal to the federal court right now. We'll see how they rule.

You said you were not an attorney. Your 'firm' lets non-lawyers argue cases?

If you want to go in-depth, feel free to ask.[/QUOTE]

I am taking it you are a relatively new 'employee', are you even a paralegal or just a copy boy there? You saying you are as good as a lawyer is pretty bold.

Even if you are a paralegal, it's extremely doubtful any attorney is going to fund your case out of pocket.

It's not a minor issue with HOW the defendant can pay...collecting on a judgment has got to be one of the least successful ways to get paid out of anything in the world.

Going for a $300k insurance claim + stacking some of your own insurance if you can is a sure thing to get your expenses covered. No hospital is usually going to let you tell them 'hey I got some money coming when I win my court case, it's ok I don't have medical insurance'.

I don't know where you think anyone is speculating, in accident law there is a better set standard of both % based on settlement and % based on whether it settles out of court. Only the guy hanging a shingle outside his 'home office' is usually going to go below that. It's a business, they aren't looking to make friends and for every 'win' they eat a few losses.

I am a 37 year old professional, I have represented myself against my wife and her attorney and won what I wanted. With that same wife prior to our divorce we fought a carrier when their driver broke my wife's neck. They were willing to settle, instead her parents insisted we use 'their guy'. We got the same limits of the policy they were going to give us anyway...only now he got 50%. We didn't have even enough to cover the two surgeries she needed (the costs exceeded $300k). Unfortunately we did not have health insurance at the time and the hospital did not want to settle at what an insurance company would pay. In our divorce she got to keep that debt.

I work in the banking industry with SOX issues due to Information Systems requirements. I somehow think you'd find a way to sugar coat that mess as well.

You are basically telling us everything above that all of us pretty much know already.