Are assets visible, in the event that someone wants to sue?

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:28 am Post Subject:

If Person A was in a car accident and was at fault, can the other party sue if their damages exceed Person A's liability coverage *if* Person A is by all appearances poor?

YET has money, let's say exceeding $100,000, that is in a certificate of deposit? Can this asset be "seen"?

Would the other party somehow have a way of finding out about this online CD? How would they do this? Would they be able to search on their own, through an agency, or hire a lawyer to find out Person A's complete assets? Can they go to court to request and force Person A to admit all their assets (including CDs/online savings), under threat of perjury? Can they or their lawyer do this before they decide to sue (in order to make their decision on whether pursuing legal action would be "rewarding" for them

Even if Person A didn't have any assets, would they still be seen as worth suing anyway, because their future wages can be garnished? Why do a lot of people say it's not worth suing someone who has no assets... future wages can be garnished, thus, it doesn't matter whether or not a person has assets now, right?

I get really curious about the whole insurance/lawsuit/assets process because I am just a layperson

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 02:11 pm Post Subject:

Thank you so much for your response, it was extremely helpful. I will admit that your excellent reply just gave me more questions though, heh.

Is it standard procedure for B's carrier to do asset checks for Person A, regardless of age, income, etc.? Can non-insurance companies legally obtain asset checks? Does the lawyer/Person B hire a private asset-check investigator or... how does this process work?

Separate question: Are people with no cash/savings but with real estate (house) considered a part of the 'stead Joe' category? Or is their house considered an asset just the same as a CD since it can be liquidated into cash? or is it considered "untouchable"?

Also, if Person B has collision coverage, their insurance company would still try to get what they can from me first, correct? I heard somewhere that Person A cannot be legally pursued unless both Person A's liability AND Person's B's own insurance has been exhausted and still found unsufficient. Can Person B really choose to not take advantage of their own insurance coverage and legally pursue Person A?

yikes... so many questions. Thank you so much again in advance for your reply. I am slowly learning!

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 02:56 pm Post Subject:

Also you mentioned that waiting many years for small payments would not be desirable, but isn't that better than anything? For example if Person A is indeed broke with zero savings and the damages exceeding their liability limit are still over 50k or even 25k... wouldn't Person B still be very interested to pursue suing Person A?

Then Person A would be given a judgment and have their wages garnished anyway. I guess what I'm trying to say is, isn't the "risk" EXACTLY the same whether the at-fault driver is worth 100k or worth nothing?

*Btw, this is the point I am trying to prove to a friend. We are both non-insurance people so we were arguing back and forth about the outcomes of these hypothetical situations post accident.

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 02:57 pm Post Subject:

I meant to say "isn't that better than *nothing"

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:54 am Post Subject:

Is it standard procedure for B's carrier to do asset checks for Person A, regardless of age, income, etc.?

Can non-insurance companies legally obtain asset checks? Does the lawyer/Person B hire a private asset-check investigator or... how does this process work?

Are people with no cash/savings but with real estate (house) considered a part of the 'stead Joe' category?

Or is their house considered an asset just the same as a CD since it can be liquidated into cash? or is it considered "untouchable"?

Also, if Person B has collision coverage, their insurance company would still try to get what they can from me first, correct?

I heard somewhere that Person A cannot be legally pursued unless both Person A's liability AND Person's B's own insurance has been exhausted and still found unsufficient.

Can Person B really choose to not take advantage of their own insurance coverage and legally pursue Person A?

Also you mentioned that waiting many years for small payments would not be desirable, but isn't that better than anything?

wouldn't Person B still be very interested to pursue suing Person A?

isn't the "risk" EXACTLY the same whether the at-fault driver is worth 100k or worth nothing?

)....*Btw, this is the point I am trying to prove to a friend

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 02:51 am Post Subject:

Thank you for your response :)

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 03:15 am Post Subject:

I am re-reading all the info you have provided and am very grateful for your response. Thank you again, my curiosity has been satiated lol :)

I do have one question that I must ask, lest it keep me up at night, two actually.

First is, so any layperson can pay to do an asset check on their friend, neighbor, stranger, employer, etc? I thought that was illegal? Who do they pay and where do they go...

Also, if the insurance company or lawyer did an asset check and found two people: one with just 100K in a CD but no other assets, and one with a 100K worth house but no savings... would the person with the CD be more desirable to pursue than the person with the house because of laws protecting people's houses? Does this mean that keeping your asset in the form of a house is a sort of "barrier" and "protection"? I didn't know that a house and a CD were treated differently in a potential lawsuit... I thought ALL assets were seen as fair game equally.

Thanks again.. do I have permission to keep asking questions if more crop up lol? I just never realized how much fun learning about insurance could be :P But it really is sobering to think that most people go through life with the minimum in liability. BTW do you have any statistics on the cost incurred by the average accident/bodily injury claim. Something rough like say 10k or 100k range?

Thanks again!

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:31 am Post Subject:

First is, so any layperson can pay to do an asset check on their friend, neighbor, stranger, employer, etc? I thought that was illegal? Who do they pay and where do they go...

would the person with the CD be more desirable to pursue than the person with the house because of laws protecting people's houses?

Does this mean that keeping your asset in the form of a house is a sort of "barrier" and "protection"?

I thought ALL assets were seen as fair game equally.

do I have permission to keep asking questions if more crop up lol?

I just never realized how much fun learning about insurance could be

BTW do you have any statistics on the cost incurred by the average accident/bodily injury claim. Something rough like say 10k or 100k range?

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 05:01 pm Post Subject:

Thank you again for your response. I've been so inspired by the reproductive nature of learning about insurance (every answer to a question produces 20 more questions!) that I've - no joke - decided to take a class at my college this fall semester called "Princples of Insurance." It's fascinating how the process works. In fact, the whole concept of being covered for astronomical monetary amounts for the cost of, relatively speaking, small payments, and the idea of risk management but also *calculated risk* (for example not opting to purchase the maximum coverage or different types of coverage, like health, due to limited finances) is very interesting.
So I'd like to personally thank you for piqueing my interest in insurance :D

Quote:
would the person with the CD be more desirable to pursue than the person with the house because of laws protecting people's houses?
"I would certainly think so...as I said, most states won't force a person out of their house to pay a judgment, but 100k laying around in cash is a different story all together.."

I can totally see why the two wouldn't be considered equal, and actually aren't treated as equal by the insurance co/lawyers apparently, but just to go out on a limb for argument's sake... what if the 100K was in a fund put aside to cover rent for a person who was renting an apartment... for like the next ten years? In that case it would be just as integral to that person's survival has a house, if not more (because the money would run out). 100K if you're a homeowner vs 100K as a non-homeowning renter should be treated differently by the insurance co's and lawyers in contemplating a lawsuit - that is, the courts do view these separately - am I correct?

Quote: I personally carry 100/300k, and I'm not so sure I should'nt carry a little more..(bodily injury coverage, I carry 100k PD)

I read somewhere that liability insurance is a function of the other person's damages and not your assets. So even if you're, like, worth a milliion, wouldn't it still be "reasonable" (if not ideal) to carry 100/300/100 for car accident liability? It just seems that the odds of an accident happening that incurs damages above this amount would be pretty extreme - and then it's a question of "are you still alive" more than the monetary damages. Or am I underestimating the likelihood that such expensive accidents occur regularly? I now see that BI is way more likely to be a high amount than PD (I used to think the opposite, because it my mind I thought "Car, ooh, expensive"). Heh.

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:53 pm Post Subject:

So I'd like to personally thank you for piqueing my interest in insurance

what if the 100K was in a fund put aside to cover rent for a person who was renting an apartment... for like the next ten years?

that is, the courts do view these separately - am I correct?

It just seems that the odds of an accident happening that incurs damages above this amount would be pretty extreme -

and then it's a question of "are you still alive" more than the monetary damages

Or am I underestimating the likelihood that such expensive accidents occur regularly?

now see that BI is way more likely to be a high amount than PD (I used to think the opposite, because it my mind I thought "Car, ooh, expensive"). Heh.