I wasn't going to join in here as this is beginning to run a little far
afield from GMC's, but the insurance issue raised here is applicable.
>
> I think I realized things had gone too far about 10 years
> ago. My auto insurance agent and/or company was recommending
> that I carry "underinsured motorist" coverage equal to my
> liability coverage. Asking exactly what this coverage insured
> against, I was informed that in the event of an accident
> WHICH WAS NOT MY FAULT, if the responsible party did not have
> sufficient insurance, then a victim of this accident WHICH WAS
> NOT MY FAULT could sue ME for damages WHICH I DID NOT CAUSE,
> and be paid off by this insurance.
A couple caveats before I start. This is a little outside my area of
expertise, which is commercial property, so, although I'm familiar with the
principles at work, what follows is basically my opinion. Also, since
insurance is regulated at the state level and liability cases are argued in
state and local courts, the situation might be different depending on where
you live. Lastly, since I'm using my company email account, any opinions
stated here are my own and not those of my employer or its parent company.
The principle Rick refers to above is "Joint and Severable Liability", which
we in the insurance industry like to call the "Deep Pocket Law". It
basically means that once liability is determined, it is assessed to the
extent of each party's liability up to their ability to pay(until their
insurance is exhausted) and then the remainder is assessed against the rest
of the parties regardless of the extent of their liability. So, even if
you're found only 1% liable, if others are unable to pay their part of the
settlement, then you(or your insurance company) could be forced to pay the
remainder up to the limit of your policy(or personal assets). This is why
lawyers name everyone they can think of as defendants when filing suit. If
they can convince a jury of even the slightest liability, then they've got
access to additional cash for settlement.
Now, back to Rick's insurance agent. Either(he or she) was misinformed or
had discovered a new selling tool for this coverage. "Underinsured
motorist" is usually sold to cover your losses(property and/or medical) in
the event the responsible party has insufficient insurance to pay. In many
states, the minimum liability "occurence" limit is $25,000. If your new
Lexus or Mercedes is totalled because some dimwit carrying the minimum limit
pulled out in front of you, then you're out the difference unless you carry
this coverage. Also, "Uninsured motorist" is usually a separate coverage
line, so you should buy both. Usually the premium is insignificant compared
to the rest of your coverage.
In the event you're sued, your liability insurance should pay for your
defense and any settlement. Most states have "plain language" policy
regulations, so you should be able to read your policy and see how it would
respond.
> It is quite evident that the courts have long since ceased
> to be an instrument of justice,
Quite true, I'm afraid...
Patrick
afield from GMC's, but the insurance issue raised here is applicable.
>
> I think I realized things had gone too far about 10 years
> ago. My auto insurance agent and/or company was recommending
> that I carry "underinsured motorist" coverage equal to my
> liability coverage. Asking exactly what this coverage insured
> against, I was informed that in the event of an accident
> WHICH WAS NOT MY FAULT, if the responsible party did not have
> sufficient insurance, then a victim of this accident WHICH WAS
> NOT MY FAULT could sue ME for damages WHICH I DID NOT CAUSE,
> and be paid off by this insurance.
A couple caveats before I start. This is a little outside my area of
expertise, which is commercial property, so, although I'm familiar with the
principles at work, what follows is basically my opinion. Also, since
insurance is regulated at the state level and liability cases are argued in
state and local courts, the situation might be different depending on where
you live. Lastly, since I'm using my company email account, any opinions
stated here are my own and not those of my employer or its parent company.
The principle Rick refers to above is "Joint and Severable Liability", which
we in the insurance industry like to call the "Deep Pocket Law". It
basically means that once liability is determined, it is assessed to the
extent of each party's liability up to their ability to pay(until their
insurance is exhausted) and then the remainder is assessed against the rest
of the parties regardless of the extent of their liability. So, even if
you're found only 1% liable, if others are unable to pay their part of the
settlement, then you(or your insurance company) could be forced to pay the
remainder up to the limit of your policy(or personal assets). This is why
lawyers name everyone they can think of as defendants when filing suit. If
they can convince a jury of even the slightest liability, then they've got
access to additional cash for settlement.
Now, back to Rick's insurance agent. Either(he or she) was misinformed or
had discovered a new selling tool for this coverage. "Underinsured
motorist" is usually sold to cover your losses(property and/or medical) in
the event the responsible party has insufficient insurance to pay. In many
states, the minimum liability "occurence" limit is $25,000. If your new
Lexus or Mercedes is totalled because some dimwit carrying the minimum limit
pulled out in front of you, then you're out the difference unless you carry
this coverage. Also, "Uninsured motorist" is usually a separate coverage
line, so you should buy both. Usually the premium is insignificant compared
to the rest of your coverage.
In the event you're sued, your liability insurance should pay for your
defense and any settlement. Most states have "plain language" policy
regulations, so you should be able to read your policy and see how it would
respond.
> It is quite evident that the courts have long since ceased
> to be an instrument of justice,
Quite true, I'm afraid...
Patrick
