| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | AND that person's insurer is obligated to reimburse their insured up to his/her policy limits. |
How does that imply that the _at fault_ insured can simply pay the claim as they see fit.
And I've already stated.....
""Yep..! I believe your right...! The at-fault driver can certainly get _short paid_ (reimburse) by his/her insurer... but that is the _at-fault_ drivers problem, not the Victims""
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ ) 
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 264
Location: Pa.
35.58 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | How does that imply that the _at fault_ insured can simply pay the claim as they see fit. |
Only because you state that the at fault party (insured) is responsible to pay the person who suffered the loss and then the insurer is "obligated" to pay the insured back up the the insured's policy limits. It's incorrect that the carrier is obligated to pay their insured back up to the policy limits but there is no question that by stating it as such you, at least, imply that the insured can simply pay the claim and collect back from their carrier up to the policy limit. You put no limitation on what the insured is liable to pay... it's not my responsiblity to assume that you meant any. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 3205
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
336.41 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
.
.
tcope,
You seem to be ignoring the one statement I've made numerous times. This statement is often used in Law & Insurance. It is the statement that Restricts both the insured & the Victim. That Statement is........:
"" "necessary and reasonable expenses" ""
Remember this thread was based on the Victim who is not bound by the other person's insurance policy. Only the other person is bound by His/Her insurance policy.
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ )
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 264
Location: Pa.
35.58 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The thread might have been based on that but my post commented on your statement that an insured could pay the claim and then collect from his/her insured up to the policy limits. You made no mention of "reasonable or customary" but that it moot as my post was not addressing that. My post stated that it was bad advice to imply that an insured could simply pay the claim and expect (any) payment back from his/her insured. You then asked where you implied that. I pointed that out and now your bring up "reasonable and customary".
I think I've said enough on the subject. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 3205
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
336.41 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
.
.
tcope,
A copy/paste of Part of my Very First Post in this thread: (underline added )
""Its also my understanding that the _Person_ who damaged your auto... not his/her insurer, but the person, is responsible for any and all necessary and reasonable expenses that you incur until you are back to where you where before the accident. AND that person's insurer is obligated to reimburse their insured up to his/her policy limits. ""
You have also taken My words.. ""is responsible for"" and stated them to mean ""could pay the claim and then collect from his/her insured??
In that first post and all but 1 (one) there after had the statement necessary and reasonable expenses.
_________________
.
.
That's my 2¢ worth for now. ( maybe ± a couple ¢ )
FK, |
|
FK
Senior member
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
Posts: 264
Location: Pa.
35.58 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | although I vaguely remember reading of a few court cases where the _at fault insurer_ has been forced to pay more |
I guess it should be forced otherwise it will mean, lower the policy limits, better the advantage of not paying the insured sum thus lesser the premium!!!
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:08 am Post subject: insurance |
|
|
| Sounds similiar to what I went through. When I wrecked my vehicle and it was 'totaled', theother driver;s Insurance Company said it was just too unsafe to drive, at that point (bent the frame, bent 2 brackets, etc). The other Insurance company DID 'add on' price for the registration, etc....to the Kelly Blue Book, of my vehicle. They determined the price by looking at the condition of the car, the mileage on it, etc. I thought the price they gave me was pretty fair. |
|
sdchargersfan
Senior member
Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 1683
4.14 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I guess it should be forced otherwise it will mean, lower the policy limits, better the advantage of not paying the insured sum thus lesser the premium!!!
|
Why would the insurer pay more than the policy limit? The insured is responsible for carrying sufficient coverage to protect himself against lawsuits.
It's the insured who has caused you the damages and not the insurance company. Therefore you can't have them pay more than the policy limit. If your damages are worth more than the insurance limit of the other party, you would be awarded with a judgement and can collect it even by garnishing the wage of the responsible driver. |
|
simon
Senior member
Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 526
90.04 Dollars($)
|
|
Previous 1 2
