Well that was not fun... hit from behind at a stop light...!

[drlapo]

Rob,

Bad news, man- sorry to hear. The good intention to make payments is no more assuring than the good intentions at the scene. These things usually go where the person makes several payments then melts away. I am the type who would be pissed enough to take her to small claims court. It's very inexpensive and effortless. The outcome is assured. The result is that you get a judgment.  The result might be the same, a payment plan- but the consequences of her defaulting are more grave. Of course, if she does not want to be dragged through that, she can borrow the money from a dear friend NOW, pay you, then take the time to pay off the friend.

small claims court will only memorialize the  dept.  they do nothing to collect it and there is no penalty if the judgement is unfulfilled.
you have to pay to  collect it

[drlapo]

the insurer is required, in a first party claim, to pay what the policy requires, no more, no less; its a contract.
on  third party claims, of course the insurer will  attempt to minimize the payment, would you  give your money away and if you did how long would you be in business
it's the transfer of a risk, its a business not a benefit or entitlement

[drlapo]

"They will Subrogate with your health insurance company"

what does this mean?
how is your health insurance company responsible for your loss?
subrogation is the transfer of the wronged party's rights to another party ie their insurer ( following a payment under the policy)

[boatdetective]

small claims court will only memorialize the  dept.  they do nothing to collect it and there is no penalty if the judgement is unfulfilled.
you have to pay to  collect it

It depends upon the state- but you can have the court issue a "capias" in the event of default to pay a judgment.  In some cases, this means the plaintiff hires a sheriff to execute the capias, he finds the defendant, handcuffs them, drags them back into court, the judge gets really pissed at the defendant, and the defendant has to arrange payment/attached wages/etc. including the cost of the sheriff.

[LowRyter]

"They will Subrogate with your health insurance company"

what does this mean?
how is your health insurance company responsible for your loss?
subrogation is the transfer of the wronged party's rights to another party ie their insurer ( following a payment under the policy)

subrogation is among the two insurers...the health insurance and the vehicle insurance companies.  Basically they split the costs.  Usually means the vehicle insurer will pay the $10k (or whatever policy limit) of medical coverage.  Typically it pays the deductible and gaps the Health Insurance doesn't cover up to the policy limit.  Or the vehicle insurer may just pay the policy holder $10k and let the insured work the medical bills with the health insurance company.

[drlapo]

in CT that costs $100 and the marshall will only notify the defendant, not physically bring him in.
you can execute a lien on his wages, if he has a job. but you have ot find out where he works or get his SS number
you can put  lien on his house or car, if he has one, for addditional cost
if he has nothing you get nothing
most of the time he will make a payment or two then stop, now you have to go through it all  again, for another $100 fee to the state, repeat as needed

it's a civil matter, the courts won't be much help

[drlapo]

subrogation is among the two insurers...the health insurance and the vehicle insurance companies.  Basically they split the costs.  Usually means the vehicle insurer will pay the $10k (or whatever policy limit) of medical coverage.  Typically it pays the deductible and gaps the Health Insurance doesn't cover up to the policy limit.  Or the vehicle insurer may just pay the policy holder $10k and let the insured work the medical bills with the health insurance company.

I have to disagree, that is not the definition of subrogation


A term denoting a legal right that is reserved by most insurance carriers. Subrogation is the right for an insurer to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured. This is done as a means of recovering the amount of the claim paid to the insured for the loss.

[Lannis]

Basically , the only parties getting rich are the lawyers .

  Dusty

Yep.   And I JUST remembered where that money all comes from .... !

Lannis

[drlapo]

an insurance company cannot  subrogate against another insurance company.  the first party company assumes the rights of it's insured to   recover from the responsible party (subrogate), who may or may not be insured.  the responsible party's insurer may take up the defense if  it is coverd under the policy.
very seldom will an insurance company pursue a claim under their own name, it s their insured's claim and they will never pursue the claim against another insurance company; insurance companies don't sue other insurance companies

[drlapo]

the defendant would obtain a summary judgement at the first hearing
the plaintiff company has no legal claims against the defendant company, the  right of claim is against the responsible party; the thrid party insured not insurer
semantics but the  complaint will not be against another insurance company

[Lannis]

Yep.   And I JUST remembered where that money all comes from .... !

Lannis

Those expenses are spread out over the entire customer base . No way an insurance company can charge one individual a high enough rate to cover a large loss .

  Dusty

Yes.  What I said.  All the money that's making the lawyers prosperous is coming from the premiums that the customers pay ..... there isn't another source ....

Lannis

[drlapo]

most insurers make their money on their investments; they invest the premium dollars
the premium pool is not  large enough for most lines to cover the claims never mind the expense; most auto isurers have  loss ratios  of    more than 100%

[Lannis]

most insurers make their money on their investments; they invest the premium dollars
the premium pool is not  large enough for most lines to cover the claims never mind the expense; most auto isurers have  loss ratios  of    more than 100%

Well, maybe.

All I know is that since 1980, me and my employer have paid over $400,000 in premiums for my health insurance, and I've used about $30,000 of that.   Since 1970, I've spent about $50,000 on vehicle insurance, and collected about $2,000 on it, and I've spent $60,000 on house and property insurance and never had to use it once.

SOMEONE is pickin' and grinnin' on top of a big green pile consisting of a whole sh!tpotfull of my money over the years, I do know that.  

Lannis

[drlapo]

they are NOT going after an insurance company, they are going after the responsible party who may have a liablity policy to cover his liablity and if the poicy limits are not adequate the insurence company is NOT liable for any amounts over the policy limits. the isurer has no seperate liablilty
there are instances where an insurer will sue another insurer,  as in a joint loss situation, a loss insured under  more than one policy, but it is not a subrogation action

[drlapo]

Lannis, your money went to pay the claims of the guy who bought a policy for $600 and his house burned down two weeks later

and for my heart stents, thanks

[Lannis]

Lannis , we are still relatively young . One major surgery with an extended hospital stay will eat up that $400K . Just how the system works , the next gen will have to subsidize us in our old age .

  Dusty

I know.   I've just been lucky, I guess.   Although if I'd not paid for all that insurance, and had invested in Intel or Microsoft instead, that $400K operation and drlapo's stents would have been pocket change and chicken feed, respectively!!

Lannis

[LowRyter]

I have to disagree, that is not the definition of subrogation


A term denoting a legal right that is reserved by most insurance carriers. Subrogation is the right for an insurer to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss to the insured. This is done as a means of recovering the amount of the claim paid to the insured for the loss.

and how is it that any different from what I said in practice?  

[johnr]

Rob, just saw this thread. Being rear ended is a scenario that I dread, and knowing what is going on behind you is very much harder than knowing what is coming up front.

Glad you are OK.

[EVDavid]

Sorry to hear about that Rob.

It has happened to me twice plus one near miss when I was stopped at a pedestrian crossing with a mother and pram crossing in front of me, where to go! Luckily the idiot managed to screech to a halt behind me.

When I was reversed into in a McDonalds car park near Patras Greece the driver came out apologizing in broken English. Unfortunately for him  I speak Greek and gave him an earful of colourful invective so he scuttled off pronto.

[Testarossa]

Being rear ended is a scenario that I dread, and knowing what is going on behind you is very much harder than knowing what is coming up front.

This is a very good argument for going fast all the time.

[redrider90]

Rob, just saw this thread. Being rear ended is a scenario that I dread, and knowing what is going on behind you is very much harder than knowing what is coming up front.

Glad you are OK.

I was sitting at a traffic light in the country some 10 years ago on the way to work.   The speed drops from 55 to 45 and then there is the light all to close together for my liking.  My wife was rear ended bad there a year before. I always leave a bit of room in front of me and at this light which seems to have more than its share of rear enders I leave more room. I heard the sound of screeching tires... and instinctively took off fast into the empty left turn lane. As I did that the car I had heard screeching,  skidded to a stop in the spot I had just vacated. That one I will never forget. It is not often one gets a chance to avoid a rear ender. If had been on the bike I would have been toast.

[Testarossa]

My friend Mark Kingsbury received a Harley for his 50th birthday. The next day he was stopped at a light -- killed by a semi coming from behind.

[LowRyter]

This certainly makes the case for lane splitting at intersections.  Not only is lane splitting safer, it would also reduce congestion.

A law on the books that represents most folks' "common sense" but needlessly endangers and causes traffic delays. 

[johnr]

This is a very good argument for going fast all the time.

Absolutely right. As a matter of policy providing it is a practical proposition, I travel about 5mph faster than the traffic flow for that very reason. I can see most of my potential problems coming.  It is when you are stopped at a traffic like or some such that you are your most vulnerable.

Lane splitting at a stop light has it's good points I think, though I'm not sure if it's legal here or not. I've never been pulled up for it. I have rules for myself when doing it though. 1/ The traffic I'm moving between must be stopped. 2/ I do it slowly to avoid surprises. 3/ I must be able to get right to the front.  That way I'm not trapped between moving vehicles  when the light turns green, and generally I can get clear ahead. Into clear air so to speak.