car insurance: liability limits

[Curmudgeon]

Talk to your insurance agent if you have one. This is becoming nit-picky.

[oldtrader]

(b) An owner, bailee of an owner, or personal representative of a decedent is not liable under this chapter for damages imposed for the sake of example and by way of punishing the operator of the vehicle. Nothing in this subdivision makes an owner, bailee of an owner, or personal representative immune from liability for damages imposed for the sake of example and by way of punishing him for his own wrongful conduct.

There is the kicker in that law. You can be forced to pay for things far above the limits you think are in effect, if you are taken to court. It is up to what the judge and/or jury think you should pay.

If you think you can get by with just paying $5,000 if you total out someone's $60,000 car think again. The owner that has their car totaled as an example, will be paid by their insurance company, and the company will then sue you to recover the rest from you.

That is why any agent worth anything will tell you to get at least $100,000/$300,000 in insurance. It is nothing for that amount of medical care and lost work payment needed by someone injured in an accident. If you at a higher income than average, or have a net worth of very much, you had better protect yourself.

As those limits were set about 40 years ago they are way out of date and there are bills in the state legislature to considerably increase them. 40 years ago, you could buy a decent car for $5,000. Try and do that today.

[max.b]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I'll take my chances. I wrote law for the state for about 20 years. Mine was clear and unambivalent. No wonder the lobbyists disliked me. No wiggle-room!

Are you here to ask or here to argue?

Please take this off-topic I-used-to-be-a-ghostwriter "bragging" somewhere else.

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by max.b

So I loan a car to a friend, she causes an accident. Do I understand it correctly that she's liable, but if she can't be sued, or doesn't have enough money, I'm also liable, but only up to $30k/$15k/$5k?

I think a lot of people borrow cars (or test-drive cars at the dealership, say) without realizing that the insurance covers the owner, no the operator.

Do I understand this correctly?

No, the owner is always responsible for any accidents. This may be recoverable in civil court.

[max.b]

Originally Posted by ferretkona

No, the owner is always responsible for any accidents. This may be recoverable in civil court.

That's correct, but besides the point. The operator is liable "before" the owner is liable. Secondly, the owner's liability is limited to $35k per accident.

If you disagree, please substantiate your argument (quote the law).

[Malloric]

There's a gross negligence exception. For example, if the owner knew the operator was drunk and allowed them to drive anyway.

I'm really not sure what's confusing. Operated = unlimited liability; owner limited liability except in a case of gross negligence. I'm generally the operator, so the limited liability of someone else driving my car isn't what I would base my insurance on.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by max.b

Please take this off-topic I-used-to-be-a-ghostwriter "bragging" somewhere else.

Pleasant little nit-picker who only wants to argue, aren't you?

If every question and each response simply leads to yet another question then there's no progress and it's a waste of time.

Now then, G'Day!

PS. Since you're so (dis)interested in the law, it's all "ghost" written. Legislators who introduce it may take credit for it but it's others who write it and those names are never appended to it. They don't need to be.

[tcfromoc]

You are misinterpreting this law. It doesn't address a maximum liability for a negligent driver. It is the maximum liability on a (non-employer) vehicle owner (separate from issues of negligent entrustment, etc.) Although it is rarely practical, drivers can always be sued over and above their insurance policy limits.