Going to court tomorrow

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

If they owe you they owe you, get a judgement;

---

Exactly. I don't think the insurance company of the car that she was driving limits the owner's or her liablitity ..it just assures a certain amount of coverage. You should still be able to sue for the remainder of the loss.

Otherwise I should have minimum liablity coverage since my house and other assets are untouchable.

Naturally, I have full coverage.

 

[JHZR2]

All in all its as annoying as all get-out, but we're not giving up...

It just sucks, thts all.

JMH

 

[Johnny]

I did not realize it was the Benz she destroyed. HANG HER!

 

[Winston]

I find it strange that the judge agreed that they will have to be sure that the sum of the judgements is less than the policy max. Whatever her policy does not cover should be her responsibility. That is why I have such high liability maximums on my auto insurance.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, I think this was a coup pulled by the attorney. I'm unsure of the reason for it ..except that liability tends to follow the money. That is, even if the insurer has a limit ...if the loss is substantial enough, the insurer typically is the one who pays. For example ..let's say instead of totalling three cars she had run over and killed three people. The liability would probably be well beyond any of her, or the owner's, assets as well as beyond the limits of the policy. The insurance company would be the one to bear the costs.

I would have objected to it ..but I can see how it would be some "standard" motion.

 

[JHZR2]

well, the thing is, the judge did find in my favor (not in the amount that I wanted though). Its just that outright the insurance lawyer stated that they would appeal, and they surely will.

Its all garbage. I thought I was smart enough to get through without a lawyer, but now Im going to get one; even if I loose half of my winnings, this is ridiculous.

JMH