Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The law requires you to prove financial responsibility. Insurance is just the easiest way for most to do that.
Other Methods of Proving Financial Responsibility By Texas law, you do not have to purchase a car insurance policy to drive as long as you can provide another acceptable form of financial responsibility. A cash deposit or a cashier's check with a county judge verifying you have deposited at least $55,000 is accepted as proof of financial responsibility. As is a surety bond or a copy of a self-insurance certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety.
The complainant can't accept a settlement from your insurance company and then turn around and sue you, since they have to agree NOT to sue you in order to receive the insurance money in the first place.
That's the thing, though - they can't accept the 200k unless they DO say goodbye - because they can't get the 200k from your insurer unless they sign an agreement not to sue you after they take the money.
Your missing the difference between "Settlement" and "Judgement."
A settlement is where Allstate says, "we'll offer you $125K" and you accept, you sign papers to the effect that the matter is settles and you can't take it to court.
If Allstate says "We offer you $125K" and you reject that and take it to trial, and win a Judgement for $500K, and the policy limit is $200K, Allstate pays $200K. It isn't a choice, they signed a contract to cover up to $200K, and a Judge and Jury agreed that the insured owes money.
A judgement from a trial, and a settlement, are the same thing, the only difference is that in a trial, the Judge/Jury (impartial 3rd party) sets the damage award, instead of the two parties agreeing to it over the negotiating table.
Other Methods of Proving Financial Responsibility By Texas law, you do not have to purchase a car insurance policy to drive as long as you can provide another acceptable form of financial responsibility. A cash deposit or a cashier's check with a county judge verifying you have deposited at least $55,000 is accepted as proof of financial responsibility. As is a surety bond or a copy of a self-insurance certificate issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Doesn't seem like a good deal to me. Yes, one is saving the insurance premiums, but giving up the return on $55k, and getting no coverage.
I've been trying to figure out how much auto liability coverage I need, and keep seeing these two pieces of advice:
1) Get the highest liability coverage level you can possibly afford. You need it because, if the damages in an accident you cause are higher than what you're insured for, after the injured party receives a settlement from your insurance company s/he can turn around and sue you for the remaining amount.
2) All you need is liability coverage to match the value of your assets, since that will shelter them in case of a judgement against you.
Unless I'm missing something, the second piece of advice only makes sense if you don't have to worry about a plaintiff suing you separately after accepting a payout from your insurance company.
I've found information online saying you can't be sued by someone after your insurance company pays off their claim, since before accepting an insurance settlement, the injured party is required as a matter of course to sign an agreement saying that s/he won't bring a further suit against the insurance company or other defendants - including the driver at fault.
But then again, there are countless warnings all over the Internet saying you should get the highest amount of liability coverage you can lay your hands on, in case just exactly that happens - you're sued for excess damages after your insurance company pays out.
So, can you be sued for damages beyond what your insurance company settles for? If you have legal background or personal experience in this area, I'll be very grateful for any information you can share! Thanks in advance - Carol
For the legal answer to the above, you absolutely need to call your insurance agent/broker. Because: 1. Every circumstance is different; 2. Every state has its own laws; and yes …. you definitely can be sued for an amount over and above the 'limits' of your policy. You could be in very deep doo doo in the event of death(s) resulting from an accident that was your fault. Let's say you were drinking while driving and 3 people out of 4 were killed in the car you hit. Very deep consequences for you. Doesn't have to be DWD either, for any accident where you were in the wrong, death resulting.
Not a buyer ever of a condo/coop. Seen/heard of too many irresponsible neighbors. That affected friend's property.
HOA, trying to imagine the holes. Say your friend's child get hurt at the clubhouse. Then, of course, the HOA insurance would cover it.
If it happens at your home. Your insurance would cover it.
Leaky holes? Need to call agent anyway, I'll ask her. Umbrellas are very cheap.
We've had umbrellas for decades. Wouldn't be without it. We have trusts which protect us anyway.
If we did something to screw up someone's life, morally we owe them to make them whole. Couldn't live with ourselves if we didn't.
one of the issues is what happens when it happens on common grounds and an award exceeds their insurance .
we know any overage would pass to us but here is what we did not know .
in this case we had a neighborhood volunteer night time patrol made up of inhabitants in our hoa .
the question came up what would happen if say a civilian patrol chased some kids out in snow mobiles , they got hurt and were awarded more than the development's insurance .
well we would all be responsible for any overage , which was no surprise answer .
the big surprise was that none of our insurance would likely cover it .
your insurance only covers acts caused by you or household members , not others .
i called geico and they confirmed , any acts by others we get sued for such as in an hoa,co-op or condo would not be covered .
also any act of self defense where someone is injured and sues you and wins would not be covered since shooting , stabbing or injuring another party are intentional acts and they don't cover intentional acts .
your insurance may also not cover rentals unless proper landlord insurance is used as well because of some gotchas in ho3 homeowners that can turn a act of arson , theft or vandalism by a tenant in to an insurance job since without proper land lord insurance your tenant becomes an insured as a household member under ho3 .
one of the issues is what happens when it happens on common grounds and an award exceeds their insurance .
we know any overage would pass to us but here is what we did not know .
in this case we had a neighborhood volunteer night time patrol made up of inhabitants in our hoa .
the question came up what would happen if say a civilian patrol chased some kids out in snow mobiles , they got hurt and were awarded more than the development's insurance .
well we would all be responsible for any overage , which was no surprise answer .
the big surprise was that none of our insurance would likely cover it .
your insurance only covers acts caused by you or household members , not others .
i called geico and they confirmed , any acts by others we get sued for such as in an hoa,co-op or condo would not be covered .
That's concerning, but at the same time, I can see it as a way of avoiding paying for defacto assessments and the insurance company trying to figure if it was a new roof they're putting on or something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
also any act of self defense where someone is injured and sues you and wins would not be covered since shooting , stabbing or injuring another party are intentional acts and they don't cover intentional acts .
I think that varies by policy, maybe state. I was told the opposite by my agent. He actually brought it up to me when I scheduled a collectible hunting rifle on the policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
your insurance may also not cover rentals unless proper landlord insurance is used as well because of some gotchas in ho3 homeowners that can turn a act of arson , theft or vandalism by a tenant in to an insurance job since without proper land lord insurance your tenant becomes an insured as a household member under ho3 .
i can write quite an extensive list
That actually makes a lot of sense. LL vs HO insurance are and should be different animals.
one of the issues is what happens when it happens on common grounds and an award exceeds their insurance .
we know any overage would pass to us but here is what we did not know .
in this case we had a neighborhood volunteer night time patrol made up of inhabitants in our hoa .
the question came up what would happen if say a civilian patrol chased some kids out in snow mobiles , they got hurt and were awarded more than the development's insurance .
well we would all be responsible for any overage , which was no surprise answer .
the big surprise was that none of our insurance would likely cover it .
your insurance only covers acts caused by you or household members , not others .
i called geico and they confirmed , any acts by others we get sued for such as in an hoa,co-op or condo would not be covered .
also any act of self defense where someone is injured and sues you and wins would not be covered since shooting , stabbing or injuring another party are intentional acts and they don't cover intentional acts .
your insurance may also not cover rentals unless proper landlord insurance is used as well because of some gotchas in ho3 homeowners that can turn a act of arson , theft or vandalism by a tenant in to an insurance job since without proper land lord insurance your tenant becomes an insured as a household member under ho3 .
i can write quite an extensive list
Insurance does not cover intentional acts. Its usually the first exclusion that will appear in a policy. The whole concept of insurance is that it pays for events that are "accidental" in nature. The only exception might be where one operates a business where the "use of force is reasonably contemplated". Perhaps, a bar could obtain insurance for acts of a bouncer in dealing with an unruly customer, but I couldn't even be certain of that.
The best advice I could give anyone is that if you have concerns about policy coverage you need to talk to your insurance agent at the time you purchase a policy. If the problem is a big enough concern, I would not stop there. I would contact an attorney who practices in the field of insurance law and obtain his/her opinion about coverage. Since you did this, please don't interpret this reply as some kind of a lecture. Its just general advice to people who have questions about coverage under a policy.
The situations you describe are unusual ones. Its not something most people would be contemplating when they purchase insurance. They are the kind of situations that a professor would use on an examination for class of students taking a course on insurance law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
