by jontomal » Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:55 pm
I live in California and was hit by a car as a pedestrian a couple months ago jaywalking. The total medical bills were about $40k, in which I had to pay about $3k out of pocket and my medical insurance paid the rest. Yesterday I was awarded $15k from the other guys car insurance company, which is California's minimum personal injury amount. Considering California law, does my medical insurance company have a right to get that $15k since the driver was more at fault or is it mine to keep?
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 04:11 am Post Subject:
Considering California law, does my medical insurance company have a right to get that $15k since the driver was more at fault or is it mine to keep?
They certainly do have the right to the money. It's a concept called SUBROGATION.
When you obtained your medical insurance, it was intended to cover things that affected you medically, or as the result of something you did to yourself accidentally. Like falling off a ladder and breaking an arm or a leg. It was not intended to pay the bills created by someone else's negligence, like an employer or a careless driver who plows down a pedestrian.
The medical insurance company is entitled to recover up to 100% of what it paid on your behalf due to the third-party's involvement. They will probably not be so cruel and heartless to take all the money from you. You might be able to split it 50-50 with them.
Then you need to join the campaign to raise minimum liability insurance limits in California to $30,000/$60,000/$15,000 from today's $15,000/$30,000/$5,000.
Did you have Medical Payments as part of your own personal auto policy? That's another $5,000 you can get to give to your medical insurance company.
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 06:25 am Post Subject:
They can be entitled to the money but if I were you, I'd wait until they asked for it. Which will probably never happen. If they do ask for reimbursement you can feel free to work out a deal with them. Let them know that the settlement was _extremely_ and was just enough to cover _your_ loss.
I'm guessing you don't have UIMBI on one of your vehicles?
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 04:00 pm Post Subject:
15k is the minimum liability coverage in California? What are you supposed to cover with 15k? I can only imagine how many people are running around with the minimum coverage.
Christ minimum is 25k for one person and 50k for two.
The 10k min for property damage I think is a huge joke. 5k in CA? Wow.
Can you "self insured" in CA. You can in VT, you need $115k on hand and you need to file with the Comissioner of Motor Vehicles.
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:12 am Post Subject:
They can be entitled to the money but if I were you, I'd wait until they asked for it.
Very true. And I also failed to mention UMBI as tcope did. In CA, we don't have separate UN and UNDER insured as some other states do (but UMBI and UMPD are separate coverages, and UMPD is limited to $3500 or waiver of deductible).
It's also one of those affirmative rejection items, too, in an initial application for a new policy (meaning, one must specifically REJECT UMBI/UMPD, which means they have to tell you what it does before you can agree not to carry it). I would never advise someone to reject UMBI/UMPD in California -- too many drivers running around with minimum limits in addition to those who drive without insurance.
15k is the minimum liability coverage in California? What are you supposed to cover with 15k? . . . The 10k min for property damage I think is a huge joke. 5k in CA?
YES, exactly! And I've been licensed since age 16 in 1968 and these were the minimums back then, too == 15/30/5. In 1968, $5000 property damage might have covered the majority of vehicle damage claims, but it still would not have covered the cost of knocking down a tri-color signal pole. Or driving through a storefront or into someone's home.
The motor vehicle financial responsibility law permits a person to post a bond or create a segregated bank account with DMV as beneficiary in lieu of insurance. But the required amount is the same $30,000 -- the maximum "minimum liability" that must be carried.
Our illustrious former Commissioner John Garamendi (whose second set of 4 year terms as Commissioner after our term limits law was passed was the model for Jerry Brown's return to the Capitol Building come January 2011) helped to create California's "Low Cost Auto Insurance" plan that now covers almost the entire state. Subject to certain requirements, including household income, an LCAI participant can actually carry LOWER limits than the rest of the drivers who carry 15/30/5. As reasonably good a Commissioner as Garamendi was, this makes even less sense than 15/30/5. One more reason to pay the few bucks necessary for UMBI/UMPD.
There is no explanation for what goes on in this state -- in or out of insurance. The politicians are, for the most part, a bunch of dopes, and the voters continue to return them to office. So I guess we deserve what we have -- at least those others who vote for the dopes do. I rarely vote for any incumbents. Poizner's been a very good Commissioner (probably because he's not a very good politician, and also not an insurance person). I for one am sorry he decided to run against Whitman and not for reelection. Big mistake. Now he'll probably just fade into oblivion.
I was born here, have never lived outside the greater LA region, but I'm almost ready to leave the state. If Obama gets reelected in 2012, I might even seriously begin thinking of leaving the country. Maybe go to Argentina, where my wife was born.
In the meantime, I would be among the first to vote YES on one of our usually ridiculous public referendum ballot measures that mandated an increase in minimum auto liability limits. But it would also have to include a provision that overhauled TORT law, too. Gotta keep the lawyers' grubby little paws off the money. It might actually be fun to watch the battle over that one.
Add your comment