Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/1/2004 1:09:58 PM EST
If they refuse to pay a claim of one of their clients, because they said there is not enough in the police report to show fault? I can prove it in court, but instead of suing the person can I sue his insurance company for not paying the claim?

Has anyone else done this? Do you sue the Insurance Company directly? It involved bruises and pack pain of the two passengers with me, so could I ask for some type of damages?

Just seeing what experiences you guys have had.

Thanks!


Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:10:39 PM EST
yes. i hope that helped.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:10:51 PM EST
You can sue ANYBODY for ANYTHING.
How it will turn out is another question though.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:36:57 PM EST
Not really. Hoping for someone who has went through something like this.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:43:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By Shi_Huang_Di:
If they refuse to pay a claim of one of their clients, because they said there is not enough in the police report to show fault? I can prove it in court, but instead of suing the person can I sue his insurance company for not paying the claim?

Has anyone else done this? Do you sue the Insurance Company directly? It involved bruises and pack pain of the two passengers with me, so could I ask for some type of damages?

Just seeing what experiences you guys have had.

Thanks!





The insurance comapny has better lawyers than you can ever afford to hire. The best course of aaction is to get insurance elsewhere.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:46:08 PM EST
Actually, you should talk to a lawyer and tell him you heard that there's "fee statute" covering this sort of thing (there almost certainly will be such a statute). If there's anything at all to the situation, he will be all over it like a pitbull on a porkchop.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:49:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 1:52:40 PM EST by Balzac72]

Originally Posted By ar50troll:

Originally Posted By Shi_Huang_Di:
If they refuse to pay a claim of one of their clients, because they said there is not enough in the police report to show fault? I can prove it in court, but instead of suing the person can I sue his insurance company for not paying the claim?

Has anyone else done this? Do you sue the Insurance Company directly? It involved bruises and pack pain of the two passengers with me, so could I ask for some type of damages?

Just seeing what experiences you guys have had.

Thanks!





The insurance comapny has better lawyers than you can ever afford to hire. The best course of aaction is to get insurance elsewhere.



Sorry, but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about! Obviously on a case they are surely guilty of, they'll hire better attornies, but in most cases, they either have inside counsel or a firm they deal with. Those firms are usually nothing special and their attornies are usually less than special. I worked at an insurance defense firm on Wall Street, there was NOTHING special about the attornies or the firm, except for their clients and reception area.

Shi Huang Di, your original question is somewhat wrong. NO, you would have to sue both the ins co and the person who caused the accident or whatnot. The court will then impose any judgment on the insurance company whose policy was in full force and effect at the time, especially upon finding of fault by the jury. You won't get any better of an answer than that.

Oh yeah, even if your attorney didn't choose to sue the tort feasor, the company would join the TF in the action and you'd be forced to sue them anyway.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:50:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:53:04 PM EST
I want "his" insurance to pay for the accident HE caused. Bottom line is my Insurance Company will pay with my deductible, but I think this is total bull. I did not do anything but get my car damaged from him. I will talk to a lawyer, but I was just looking for experiences or information to think about.

Thanks

Link Posted: 9/1/2004 1:53:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 1:53:36 PM EST by ar50troll]

Originally Posted By Balzac72:

Sorry, but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about! Obviously on a case they are surely guilty of, they'll hire better attornies, but in most cases, they either have inside counsel or a firm they deal with. Those firms are usually nothing special and their attornies are usually less than special. I worked at an insurance defense firm on Wall Street, there was NOTHING special about the attornies or the firm, except for their clients and reception area.

Shi Huang Di, your original question is somewhat wrong. NO, you would have to sue both the ins co and the person who caused the accident or whatnot. The court will then impose any judgment on the insurance company whose policy was in full force and effect at the time, especially upon finding of fault by the jury. You won't get any better of an answer than that.

Oh yeah, even if your attorney didn't choose to sue the tort feasor, the company would join the TF in the action and you'd be forced to sue them anyway. This sounds like you have a friend or family member who did something or you're trying to milk their insurance company, right?



OK let him go through the motions and see what happens.
I never said they had better counsel ONSITE. Let me be clear for smaller minds.
IF YOU GO TO COURT, OR EVEN BEGIN THE PROCESS...THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL HAVE BETTER LEGAL COUNSEL THAN YOU CAN EVER AFFORD TO HIRE. THESE ATTORNEIES MAY OR MAY NOT BE ONSITE AT THE INSURANCE COMPANY, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 2:00:30 PM EST
complain to the state department of insurance too
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 2:00:45 PM EST
My wife and daughter were the people hurt.

Thanks for the responses.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 2:02:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 2:05:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:

Originally Posted By Balzac72:

Sorry, but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about! Obviously on a case they are surely guilty of, they'll hire better attornies, but in most cases, they either have inside counsel or a firm they deal with. Those firms are usually nothing special and their attornies are usually less than special. I worked at an insurance defense firm on Wall Street, there was NOTHING special about the attornies or the firm, except for their clients and reception area.

Shi Huang Di, your original question is somewhat wrong. NO, you would have to sue both the ins co and the person who caused the accident or whatnot. The court will then impose any judgment on the insurance company whose policy was in full force and effect at the time, especially upon finding of fault by the jury. You won't get any better of an answer than that.

Oh yeah, even if your attorney didn't choose to sue the tort feasor, the company would join the TF in the action and you'd be forced to sue them anyway. This sounds like you have a friend or family member who did something or you're trying to milk their insurance company, right?



OK let him go through the motions and see what happens.
I never said they had better counsel ONSITE. Let me be clear for smaller minds.
IF YOU GO TO COURT, OR EVEN BEGIN THE PROCESS...THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL HAVE BETTER LEGAL COUNSEL THAN YOU CAN EVER AFFORD TO HIRE. THESE ATTORNEIES MAY OR MAY NOT BE ONSITE AT THE INSURANCE COMPANY, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT.



I'll repeat. Most outside counsel insurance defense firms are nothing special. Most plaintiff's attorneys can beat up an insurance firm with minimal work, which is why ins defense firms always settle. I used to love writing up offers to the plaintiff's firms....$5k for a nuisance suit or $10k for a suit with potential. $20k if our insured was definitely in the wrong. Like I said, most ins defense firms aren't worth shit.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 2:15:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 2:16:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 4:36:54 PM EST
Excellent guys!

Thank you.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:22:11 PM EST
The time I sued an insurance company their lawyer was a moron. Didn't know the law and he was obnoxious.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:28:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2004 6:30:21 PM EST by fight4yourrights]
I just spent 2 years living this - I was totalled out in a 5 car accident, and nobody's insurance wanted to pay.


YOUR insurance company will go after theirs. It will either settle, go to arbitration, or go to court.



That will take care of your out of pocket damages - medical, car, etc...

Then you will have to sue for pain and suffering, I believe.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:33:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Shi_Huang_Di:
If they refuse to pay a claim of one of their clients, because they said there is not enough in the police report to show fault? I can prove it in court, but instead of suing the person can I sue his insurance company for not paying the claim?

Has anyone else done this? Do you sue the Insurance Company directly? It involved bruises and pack pain of the two passengers with me, so could I ask for some type of damages?

Just seeing what experiences you guys have had.

Thanks!





Depends. You really need to check with a lawyer in your state. Ins. co has no contractual duty to you, and their denial is probably based on their evaluation of their insured' s liability. Now if you get a excess verdict against the insured, HE may be able to sue ins. co. But at this point, probably you cannot.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:36:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By Shi_Huang_Di:
If they refuse to pay a claim of one of their clients, because they said there is not enough in the police report to show fault? I can prove it in court, but instead of suing the person can I sue his insurance company for not paying the claim?

Has anyone else done this? Do you sue the Insurance Company directly? It involved bruises and pack pain of the two passengers with me, so could I ask for some type of damages?
Just seeing what experiences you guys have had.

Thanks!





You have to sue the person who hit you--then through a legal principle called "subrogation" you end up doing battle with his/her insurance company. Let me get this straight though--you want to sue for "bruises and back pain" received by OTHERS who were in your vehicle? Unless they were your minor children, good luck.



I agree with the beekeper mostly, although subrogation is an altogether different principle and doesn't directly relate to a liability claim by an injured person. It comes into play if , say, you are at work, file a comp claim, get paid, then file a tort claim, and one insurance company wants an "offset" and pursues it through subrogation.....or perhaps you are not insured, you cause damage, the injured person's insurance pays them through their un-insured policy, then their ins. co. comes after you through subrogation. Hope that helps.
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 6:38:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By ar50troll:

Originally Posted By Balzac72:

Sorry, but you obviously have no clue what you're talking about! Obviously on a case they are surely guilty of, they'll hire better attornies, but in most cases, they either have inside counsel or a firm they deal with. Those firms are usually nothing special and their attornies are usually less than special. I worked at an insurance defense firm on Wall Street, there was NOTHING special about the attornies or the firm, except for their clients and reception area.

Shi Huang Di, your original question is somewhat wrong. NO, you would have to sue both the ins co and the person who caused the accident or whatnot. The court will then impose any judgment on the insurance company whose policy was in full force and effect at the time, especially upon finding of fault by the jury. You won't get any better of an answer than that.

Oh yeah, even if your attorney didn't choose to sue the tort feasor, the company would join the TF in the action and you'd be forced to sue them anyway. This sounds like you have a friend or family member who did something or you're trying to milk their insurance company, right?



OK let him go through the motions and see what happens.
I never said they had better counsel ONSITE. Let me be clear for smaller minds.
IF YOU GO TO COURT, OR EVEN BEGIN THE PROCESS...THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL HAVE BETTER LEGAL COUNSEL THAN YOU CAN EVER AFFORD TO HIRE. THESE ATTORNEIES MAY OR MAY NOT BE ONSITE AT THE INSURANCE COMPANY, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHIT.



Hehe, that's funny. insurance defense counsel are just regular lawyers like we are. To be honest, some plaintiff' s lawyer s have worked as insurance lawyers, and some insurance lawyers quit to make big money as plaintiff's lawyers...
Link Posted: 9/1/2004 7:40:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By Shi_Huang_Di:
If they refuse to pay a claim of one of their clients, because they said there is not enough in the police report to show fault? I can prove it in court, but instead of suing the person can I sue his insurance company for not paying the claim?

Has anyone else done this? Do you sue the Insurance Company directly? It involved bruises and pack pain of the two passengers with me, so could I ask for some type of damages?

Just seeing what experiences you guys have had.

Thanks!





Normally you have to sue the other driver, then his insurance company is required to pay for a lawyer to defend him and pay any judgment you obtain up to the limits of his policy. Based on your description you do not appear to have a direct cause of action against the insurer. Also you cannot bring a suit for other people's injuries unless they are your kids, or something like that.




FIRST of all, get your own lawyer.

Aimless is correct.

I'll only add that the you will need to sue the other driver claiming he is liable for the accident. His insurance company has a duty to defend its insured--the other driver. They will defend on the issue of liability or that there is no coverage as matter of contract law and that they are not responsible to their insured. Their insured may then have a lawsuit against the insurance company, but YOU likely don't.

YOU may have a judgement then against the insured, but with no insurance to pay the judgment. If the insured has no coverage, you may then be left with an empty judgment.

I'm not enirely sure whether you may argue that coverage exists directly (either directly in the principle lawsuit or whether you may intervene in any suit by the insured against the insurance company) as you are not in privity with the insurance company--only the insured is as a matter of contract law.

So, like I said, you need a platiniff's lawyer from your own state that can prosecute the case.
Top Top