Say you are driving down a road and have blowout and have a wreck that is totally your fault. Hell let's say you were negligent and had a wreck. Should it cost you EVERYTHING you own even if you have insurance. I actually carry enough insurance to cover the accident in the link even if had destroyed those $2M tools, but 99% of vehicles on the road don't and I' sure that there are ways to tap out my policies that would bankrupt me too.

Should there be a limit of liability that drivers have? Is it fair that one vehicle might be worth $25,000 and another one be worth $2M?



This thread made me think of this.

Yes.  It is unreasonable to try to use the courts to extract money from someone who doesn't have (or can't get) the money.  It is unreasonable in that it is illogical and counterproductive, much like trying to get water from a rock...

I think the limit to liability should extend only to the car and what came on it from the factory (personal injury excluded).  Basically if you want anything other than your vehicle to be covered in an accident where another driver is at fault, you have to insure it yourself.  The other thread is a good example of an accident where I have no sympathy for anything other than the vehicle getting screwed up.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

When my wife and I started moving up the ladder on our investments insurance became a hot topic.  It seemed silly to invest dollars and years working up a comfortable retirement when one bad stretch on the interstate could take it all away.  The scenario we looked at was taking out a semi loaded w/ pharmaceuticals/meat headed to the local grocery store.  

It costs a little more, but we have $1m in liability on each of our vehicles AND a $2m umbrella policy.

That 1 million umbrella (in my opinion) is a no brainer.  It's like 10 bucks a month.

You shoud only be liable for your own vehicle. If the guy wants to carry around 2 million dollars worth of tools or machinery, he should carry insurance to cover for the loss in case of an accident.

I think our $2m umbrella came out to around $16.50 per month when all was said and done.  I'll gladly piss away $200 per year in the hopes that I'll never use it, knowing that I have an extra $2,000,000 covering our asses if I do need it.

Thats how I feel about it. but it isnt the case IRL unfortunately.



 

I happens every day. Texas, like other border states has uninsured, unregistered, unlicensed drivers from south of the border.

Insurance is a cheap way to mitigate risk. If you are driving around with expensive stuff, get uninsured motorist insurance. If an illegal hits you, they will be gone over the border in the blink of an eye. Many times, the police won't cite an illegal because they have no money and won't show up for court anyway.

How I see it...... might not be the way it is though, but how it should be IMO.

Why is it unreasonable?





The basis of our tort system is that if you are found liable, the Court enters a judgment against you in the amount of damages for which you were found to be liable.





If you can't pay all of it, the judgment acts like any other debt, except that it can be used as a lien on your real property.





 

As someone who owned a company that transported surgical instruments, implants and the like (ortho stuff) I can answer this one.



I carried a $1,000,000 cargo policy, along with my business auto and business liability insurance. If the cargo I was carrying was lost or destroyed, the insurance covered it. Did not matter who was at fault. Policy was written by Lloyds Underwriters (Lloyds of London). I think the deductible was like $5,000 or something.

My thoughts as well. If you're packing 2 million dollars worth of tooling around I would think one would have some damn good insurance on it. Also they have 2 million dollars riding in the back of a pickup?

It's all a matter of perspective.  I'm sure the illegals driving around with no insurance think you should pay for any damages to your own car since you are rich!  Not much different than some of the opinions posted here.





If I'm tooling around in my Bugatti Veyron GT and you hit and total my $2,500,000 car should you not be liable for it? why not?

Honestly I see both sides, but a fair number should be reached......like $250K. A driver should only be responsible for $250K of the damage to your $2.5M car. The rest should be on you if you want to drive a car that costs more than most of the homes on the street these people live on, are worth combined.

How is that fair?



 

Explain how you think it is unfair and I will reply to specifics .

So if the guy had ran into your your home you would be okay with him not being liable for any damage over 250K?

I can see it both ways. Defiantly an interesting topic and something to think about.

yeah, never though about that
now im looking up umbrella policies

If I put my home on wheels and roll it down the road then yeah I'd be fine with that.  Why wouldn't i be?

Very true.  I've been a member of this site for years and can't think of more than a couple of topics where I thought, "Well, I haven't thought of that before and I'm not sure what I believe".

My gut says that if anyone fucks up a $2.5m car then they and their insurance company is on the hook for $2.5m.  I don't really care for the idea that anyone is out of 90% of their property because its nicer than what the guy that ruined it can afford to pay.

We have different views on it. I believe that the irresponsible party should be liable for their actions. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

You did 2.5M worth of damage and think you should only have to pay for a tenth of it.



Seems pretty cut and dry.



 

Insurance?  Isn't that the kind of shit all my money a month pays for?

I routinely carry loads worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've carried loads worth several million.  We have to have insurance covering those loads, or the shipper won't use us.

I carry an umbrella policy and don't worry about it.

By putting a car on the road, you accept the risk that it gets run into. Your car should be your own responsibility. It's how it works here.



 

Not even optional in TX. Required by law.

 

There should be some cap on liability for all kinds of things and driving is one.

Operating a motor vehicle is inherently risky but it’s something we all (realistically) have to do. It’s reasonable to expect that I will have to pay for your $25,000 car if I hit you. But if I take out your $5,000,000 vehicle then it’s not reasonable. Your decision to put an expensive vehicle on the road (and at risk) contributed to the damages.

Now, the exact amount you “should” be liable for depends on the level of your own negligence and maybe even the necessity of putting that five million dollar vehicle on the road.

It makes a big difference whether you caused the wreck because you were drunk off your ass or whether you just had an unexpected blowout. And it matters whether the damaged vehicle was a piece of vital construction equipment or someone’s over priced toy.

There are no specifics to inquire about.  The only argument I could even imagine for that to be "fair" is class warfare.



If you're at fault and smoke a $2,500,000 car, or house, or convenience store, being "liable" for 10% of the value of the damage is only "fair" to the person at fault.  Somebody is still out $2,250,000 through no fault of their own.  The idea that the person with the nicer car would have to shoulder more of the burden is absurd.

Would you do a sliding scale?  If your car is worth 2x mine, you have to cover 10% of my liability, but if your car is worth 100x mine, you'd have to cover 90% of the damages?  That's crazy.



Some states will apportion the liability between the two drivers according to their actions.  I know MN does, but I try not to have accidents to test out the different states' policies.  A guy at work got hit with 10% of the liability after getting rear-ended at a stop light, since he could have taken a different route .



If the victim's insurance has to cover the difference between the value of the damaged property and what your insurance will pay out, then you will get sued.



 

I would just like to point out that life isn't fair.  There are some things that can occur that you have to just accept the risk if you can't/don't want to insure against it.  Doesn't mean you can just push the liability onto others though.

If someone else causes damage to your load, why should your insurance pay for it?  Why should your premiums go up?

Because he contributed to putting the load at risk by loading it into his truck and driving it around town.

And she contributed to her rape by wearing a blouse instead of a bur-qua?

That makes no sense.  I am putting my car at risk by driving it around town, does that absolve anyone who might hit me?

I think a person transporting valuables assumes a great deal of the risk / responsibility for them.

Typically, car insurance schemes insure cars.



Either you insure the value of your own car, or you insure the value of a typical car you might destroy, if you crash.



If you put your kids in your car without child seats, you're responsible for injuries that result from not putting them in child seats, because you neglected to properly protect them.



Expensive valuables aren't protected by child seats, they're protected by insurance. It's your responsibility to properly protect your valuables, and when you shirk that responsibility, you bear the brunt of your losses.



Consider car theft insurance. It typically would not cover the cost of extremely valuable items you had left in your car when it was stolen, because it is car theft insurance, not insurance-of-extremely-expensive valuables.
 

They won't go up if we're not at fault. We pay for insurance that covers our loads no matter the fault. It's mandated to carry the high paying loads we carry.

Unless you went out of the way to destroy a 2.5 million dollar car, you took no action that has moral repercussions to the tune of 2.5 million dollars.





Car insurance policies insure the typical value of a car, which is why the insurance premium is what it is.





A person who spends 2.5 million dollars on a car and then takes it out in public is putting a great deal of his own money at risk by doing so, because he knows (or is expected to know) that typical car insurance will not replace it for him. Since it is his valuables, it is his responsibility to insure it against accidents.
 

The way I see it, if you are driving around with $2M worth of whatever in/on your vehicle, you would be an idiot to not have it insured at its full value. You simply cannot expect that everyone would be able to cover that, and taking such a large risk would be unwise. I would also expect to have my insurance pay for what my coverage allotted for any damages I made to the same $2m load. However, I am not going to carry multi-million dollar coverage for the rare case that I run into some rare super sports car. Its not financially worth it given the chances and foreseeable risk.

Indeed, you quite literally cannot expect others to have insured your valuables for you.



Therefore, since you have no legitimate expectation of it (even if out of stupidity or ignorance you do, actually expect it), you have no right to demand that others pay for what you failed to properly insure.



 

I believe that the person who *caused* the accident should have to pay for it.

The tragic reality is that there are not that many people who could *ever* pay "several million" dollars. I know a lot of good folks who own their homes, who, on the best day, could put *all* they own on the table, and only come up with a quarter of a million dollars... And these are *good* folks, who *own* humble homes...

So, the courts could rule against them. Force them to give you *all* they have, and their insurance companies are obligated to pay *everything* that they have covered... And *you* would still be short...

To me, I understand the position of personal responsibility. I don't think anyone should *slide*. Everyone should be *accountable* for the things that they cause... Including accidents on the road...

But, it does not make any sense to me, given the fact that *most* people could never pay anyone "several million dollars", even those with acceptable coverage, and who are financially well-off.

It would be common sense to me, that if I am driving something worth millions of dollars. Something *very* important, and irreplaceable... I would have *extra* insurance to cover that item... Because, in *most* cases, in an accident, even one where the blame lies squarely on someone else, I would not be getting my money back...

Sure... It is the *other* person's fault 100%. Sure... I should *not* have to pay for things caused by *others*... But, that being said, if you have a load worth millions upon millions of dollars... I suggest paying for *additional* insurance to cover potential losses that may occur because the average insured driver does not have the ability to pay "millions..."

If the argument is personal responsibility... Then *yes* the person who caused the accident should be forced to pay for the accident.

If the argument is common sense... Then you need to realize that *most* people, even those with "pretty good" insurance could *never* *ever* pay anyone million(s) of dollars... So, if you are moving a load worth more than *most* people could *ever* pay, you should probably have *extra* insurance... Or expect that your business to fail or experience financial handicap because you are waiting for someone to pay, who will *never* be able to pay...

It's fair because you know you are driving around in a car (or with cargo, whatever) worth 2 million, and you should know that if the average person hits you and totals it, they will not be able to pay it.



I think it's irresponsible to drive around without making sure you have the coverage for yourself, just in case.   If the other guy has the money or coverage to cover it, great, but I would bet most don't.
 

If the state of Texas would just assume that the most expensive vehicle on it's roads will be worth $250,000 then made everyone carry 250K coverage it would be perfect.

If anyone felt they needed to drive a more expensive vehicle or haul an extra valuable cargo or tool on a Texas highway, they would need to get enough extra insurance to protect their "extra-valuable" cargo. and it should be on them to do so.

Texas should limit the value of a liability claim since the gaps have gotten so huge lately.

The person driving the veyron should have full coverage. The person at fault should have their insurance pay up to the 250k or whatever limit theyre covered to. Past that, they should be bankrupted to pay up as much as possible to cover as much of the remaining bill as they can. Once they are bled completely dry the insurance of the veyrons owner should cover the rest to get the owner a new car. Personal responsibility shouldnt be ignored just because you wrote a check you cant cash. Dont screw up on the road if you dont want to pay the consequences and dont tailgate behind multi million dollar exotics if you have inferior brakes.

This is what is going to happen in reality.



 

Yes, people should be responsible for their actions. however so many drivers any more do not even have insurance of any type.

Doesn't matter whether they're able to pay it, they have no responsibility to pay for it. You are responsible for insuring your own valuables.



Car insurance is specifically to repair typical cars which are damaged in accidents.



 

Google "subrogation"

This is turning into a class warfare thread.  With some surprising combatants.