people are ****

[TUSooner]

My daughter had the tiniest nothing of a bumper-thumper accident about a month ago, and I just heard from my insurance co that a claim has been made for medical damages that could exceed the minimum coverage I had at the time. People just have no shame, and there are indeed lawyers who should be shot. BUghhghghghghhghhhhh!!!!!1 :mad: :mad: :mad:

[olevetonahill]

Was there a PoPo report ?

[AlbqSooner]

That scenario is ONE of the reasons I found another profession. One nice thing about practicing in Florida was that by statute, the defendant had to provide a notarized statement, signed by the Insurance company representative from any and all insurance that would or might be liable for a claim. Said statement required, among other things, the disclosure of the extent of coverage available. If you had the minimum required coverage, the "volume" lawyers got interested in settling right away.

You are right. There are indeed lawyers who should be shot, but only after their disbarment is made publicly humiliating.

[TUSooner]

Was there a PoPo report ?

Oh yeah, the "victim" lady was on the phone to the cops immediately, and she probably called her shyster lawyer next. She lives less than a mile from me, too. I hope she drove by my house to see how not-rich a lawyer I am.

For some reason, insurance companies can't reveal their coverage limits in LA. But unofficially they will somehow learn that I had the minimum on that car.

[olevetonahill]

But fer a Shyster Lawyer to get away with it Dont he need a Shyster Doc. ?

[TUSooner]

But fer a Shyster Lawyer to get away with it Dont he need a Shyster Doc. ?

Good point. They're available, sad to say. I once knew an orthopedist who was otherwise a swell guy but who never met a patient who didn't need back surgery.

Actually, I think this lawyer is pretty small-time but will probably have the sense to know he can only stretch the truth so far in this case. If he's a little smart, he'll do like Albq mentioned and take what little he can get without too much trouble and risky expense.

[Frozen Sooner]

For some reason, insurance companies can't reveal their coverage limits in LA. But unofficially they will somehow learn that I had the minimum on that car.

Not probative towards liability and provides disincentives to purchase large coverage limits.

[AlbqSooner]

Not probative towards liability and provides disincentives to purchase large coverage limits.

Actually, large coverage limits provide the insurance company an incentive to fight like hell against any bogus claims and to quickly settle any legitimate claims. I did both sides of personal injury claims and that was my experience.

[Okla-homey]

That scenario is ONE of the reasons I found another profession. One nice thing about practicing in Florida was that by statute, the defendant had to provide a notarized statement, signed by the Insurance company representative from any and all insurance that would or might be liable for a claim. Said statement required, among other things, the disclosure of the extent of coverage available. If you had the minimum required coverage, the "volume" lawyers got interested in settling right away.

You are right. There are indeed lawyers who should be shot, but only after their disbarment is made publicly humiliating.

Here in Okie, most Plaintiffs' lawyers ask for the Defendant's policy dec page in their first set of written discovery. Under Okie law, Plaintiffs are entitled to know the Defendant's policy limits...which gnerally serves the same purpose as the Florida statute you referenced.

[Okla-homey]

But fer a Shyster Lawyer to get away with it Dont he need a Shyster Doc. ?

More likely a shyster chiro. I've seen car wreck Plaintiffs in NE Oklahoma with five figure chiro bills on their kids who were strapped in car seats during a fender bender.:rolleyes:

[Okla-homey]

My daughter had the tiniest nothing of a bumper-thumper accident about a month ago, and I just heard from my insurance co that a claim has been made for medical damages that could exceed the minimum coverage I had at the time. People just have no shame, and there are indeed lawyers who should be shot. BUghhghghghghhghhhhh!!!!!1 :mad: :mad: :mad:

Are we talking a third-party claim on your policy, or has your daughter been sued?

[Frozen Sooner]

Actually, large coverage limits provide the insurance company an incentive to fight like hell against any bogus claims and to quickly settle any legitimate claims. I did both sides of personal injury claims and that was my experience.

Sure. For the insurance company.

On the other hand, if your limits (or even the fact that you're insured) are admissible, you get juries doing things like "Hey, he's not going to pay it anyhow, the insurance company will!"

I'm just giving the public policy reasons for the Federal Rule which makes policy limits inadmissible, not advocating for them BTW. I can certainly see an argument for making them admissible.

[Frozen Sooner]

Actually, I'm a little slow today. I don't get how allowing discovery of high insurance limits incentivizes insurance companies to fight any harder in court than they would otherwise. They're on the hook regardless.

[achiro]

TU you may be getting screwed royally, I don't know and so I won't comment on the specifics of your situation but I will say that I use to have some of the same opinions as several have posted in this thread. After practicing for several years now and seeing it first hand almost daily my opinions have changed dramatically on the subject.
Just a few things to think about.
How fast does someone have to be going for you to be injured when they hit you?
Are you willing to stand with your back turned to me and let me hit you with my car at 2mph? 5? 10? Do you think you might have some injuries as a result?
How much should treatment cost? Is there such thing as too much care if it is you that is trying to get better? Wouldn't you want everything possible to be done to get you back to "normal"?
If someone is truly injured don't you agree that they should be cared for up to "pre accident status"?
Are kids immune from the same injuries as adults in the same accident?
Should kids be treated cheaper than an adult?
Should treatment only include symptoms or should prevention of future problems be prevented if possible? An example of this would be muscle damage that requires PT for a period of time that maybe can't be started until after symptoms subside.


As far as settlements: How much should someone get? One minute they are minding their own business, the next minute they have a whiplash injury, headaches, severe neck pain, or herniated disc in their neck. Those injuries may prevent sleep, they will experience pain that they wouldn't have otherwise. Time off of work, multiple trips to a Dr or PT. (what a hassle) What if they need an MRI and have major issues with small spaces. Side effects to the pain meds they have to take? What about the degenerative arthritis and associated health issues that develop as a result of the injuries? Is it right that someone wants some monetary compensation for all of that? What is the number?

My personal experience has been that some seemingly minor accidents have left a patient in severe pain for weeks or months. Where as some more severe accidents require no care at all. There are a ton of factors involved beyond the speed and how much damage there is to a car. I have turned folks down for care because I saw no reason and felt they were just looking for compensation. I have also put patients under care because they needed it knowing that I would have to write off the bill because there was no insurance. I also believe that the majority of docs and PT's out there practice the same way if they can.

[TUSooner]

Are we talking a third-party claim on your policy, or has your daughter been sued?

It's early days. The lady has hired a lawyer and said she will make a claim. That's all so far. No details about the damages claimed. If they think they can't get enough from USAA (mine), they will go after Allstate (hers) for UM if she has it. I'd be the third choice, and since I'd be screwed by the litigation to begin with (especially if I felt like I had to hire my own lawyer instead of acceptiing USAA's), I'd have nothing to lose by fighting to the last lawyer standing. But that's pretty far off, and I expect USAA will get the thing settled under the limit within 6 months or so. I'm just really pizsed off about it.

[TUSooner]

achiro - your rationalization of claims makes me a little nauseated. No doubt you are the plaintiff's lawyer's dream.

[Skysooner]

TU,

I also have USAA, but I have a large limit policy. Six years ago, my wife was following too close to another car, and traffic came to a halt quickly. She hit the car in front who bumped the car in front of her. She was definitely at fault and was ticketed.

Two years later both parties filed a lawsuit against my wife and USAA. The woman she hit settled for something like $10,000. The man (who had to replace a back panel) is suing us for $423,000. He says he will settle for $140,000 lol. USAA is offering $10,000. He is claiming lost wages, pain and suffering and loss of continuance (basically can't have sex with his wife anymore). His list of witnesses includes 10 doctors, and he has claimed over $50,000 in medical bills.

For two years, he did nothing until the woman who was in the car in the middle (and was also being sued by him), filed a countersuit saying in essence, s*** or get off the pot. So now 6 years later, we are going to trial in October. Some people have no shame. He was bumped and is trying to use this as a retirement savings scheme. I'm not sure if it would have been easier to have had a low limit policy or not. USAA will fight them all the way though.

[badger]

My daughter had the tiniest nothing of a bumper-thumper accident about a month ago

With absolutely no disrespect to a fellow Sooner, and a TU Sooner at that... do you think your daughter is being 100 percent honest about the nature of her accident?

The PoPo report might shed light into whether this was a tiny bump or a bump that could cause injury if the gold digger wasn't wearing a seat belt or something

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Since it's her accident, they can't go after you for anything right?

[achiro]

achiro - your rationalization of claims makes me a little nauseated. No doubt you are the plaintiff's lawyer's dream.

I'm not rationalizing anything. Didn't say I agree or disagree with any of the questions I posed. That's all for you to decide.
The point being many of the opinions change depending on whether you are on the giving or receiving end of an injury accident.

[Skysooner]

Since it's her accident, they can't go after you for anything right?

I think it depends on if she is over 18 or not.

[Frozen Sooner]

I think it depends on if she is over 18 or not.

Or if his name is on the title to the car.

Or if she's an insured on his policy (at least to the policy limits).

Or if he purchased the car for her knowing that she's a terrible driver.

Or any other number of things.

[Oldnslo]

Since it's her accident, they can't go after you for anything right?

usually, no. There is something called "negligent entrustment" which could be claimed against the owner of the vehicle, but it probably doesn't cause more insurance to kick in.

It is possible for a parent IN OKLAHOMA to be called upon to answer to some claims against the minor, but it's unusual.

[Okla-homey]

On a perhaps interesting aside, I had one while back in which a drunk guy guy let his less (but not by much) drunk gf drive his car. Wreck. Plaintiff whom she hit made a negligent entrustment claim against the guy. It all came out in the wash because the insurance company offered policy limits and the plaintiff took that and went on his merry way.

[Okla-homey]

How fast does someone have to be going for you to be injured when they hit you?
Are you willing to stand with your back turned to me and let me hit you with my car at 2mph? 5? 10? Do you think you might have some injuries as a result?


If you properly strap a small child in an approved car seat, in the backseat of a car, and crease that car's fender at 2, 5 or even 10 mph, that kid is not going to be hurt. Sorry. End of story.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Or if his name is on the title to the car.

Or if she's an insured on his policy (at least to the policy limits).

Or if he purchased the car for her knowing that she's a terrible driver.

Or any other number of things.

I was thinking of liability beyond the insurance limits. I always thought that parents can't be held responsible for the actions of their kids, even minor children. I understand some states have laws making parents liable for some actions of their kids, but probably not traffic accidents.

[Oldnslo]

I was thinking of liability beyond the insurance limits. I always thought that parents can't be held responsible for the actions of their kids, even minor children. I understand some states have laws making parents liable for some actions of their kids, but probably not traffic accidents.

Almost never happens. It's conceivable that a negligent entrustment claim could put the vehicle owner in a position to answer for an excess verdict. But you'd not only have to have been negligent in your entrustment of the vehicle, but also be horridly underinsured.

[Skysooner]

Or if his name is on the title to the car.

Or if she's an insured on his policy (at least to the policy limits).

Or if he purchased the car for her knowing that she's a terrible driver.

Or any other number of things.

That's why I'm glad in engineering. Pretty cut and dried most of the time. Law gives me tired head.

[Phil]

On a perhaps interesting aside, I had one while back in which a drunk guy guy let his less (but not by much) drunk gf drive his car. Wreck. Plaintiff whom she hit made a negligent entrustment claim against the guy. It all came out in the wash because the insurance company offered policy limits and the plaintiff took that and went on his merry way.

Interesting? How about the one I had where a dealership let a blind guy take a test drive? Well, not really, but his ID was the one they held for the drive, and he was the one who wanted to buy. They let his young personal assistant do the driving. I don't think he had a license. Wreck.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I'm involved with one now where the daughter in law of the car lot owner took a corvette off the lot and totaled my wife's acura MDX when she hit her from behind going through the toll...my wife had slowed down to 35 and the vette was going 75...with my kids in the 2nd row seats..

That was at Christmas and we are still trying to get medical costs covered..so far, I've paid all the medical out of pocket

[achiro]

If you properly strap a small child in an approved car seat, in the backseat of a car, and crease that car's fender at 2, 5 or even 10 mph, that kid is not going to be hurt. Sorry. End of story.

Man it would be nice if the world really were as black and white as you try and make it out to be.

[Pricetag]

Interesting? How about the one I had where a dealership let a blind guy take a test drive? Well, not really, but his ID was the one they held for the drive, and he was the one who wanted to buy. They let his young personal assistant do the driving. I don't think he had a license. Wreck.
Make sure and get Pacino's autograph.

[TUSooner]

With absolutely no disrespect to a fellow Sooner, and a TU Sooner at that... do you think your daughter is being 100 percent honest about the nature of her accident?

The PoPo report might shed light into whether this was a tiny bump or a bump that could cause injury if the gold digger wasn't wearing a seat belt or something

Well, freak injuries do happen. But I have seen the pictures, and I trust my daughter. So yeah, I'm pretty confident.

[GKeeper316]

is this in oklahoma?

because in the state of oklahoma, you can rear end someone who was at a complete standstill behind a bunch of other cars at a complete standstill, admit fault, and still get off scott-free.

[badger]

Well, freak injuries do happen. But I have seen the pictures, and I trust my daughter. So yeah, I'm pretty confident.

:D Ok, just had to get that out there before LL called your daughter a liar or something, heh.

Pictures are good evidence in court. Good luck!

[TUSooner]

I think it depends on if she is over 18 or not.

By my understanding (and hazy memory), and according to the claims ladyt, age alone is not determinative. It depends more on whether she is part of my household, which she is. I could look up the law, but only if I really have to.... :rolleyes:

[soonerboomer93]

TU you may be getting screwed royally, I don't know and so I won't comment on the specifics of your situation but I will say that I use to have some of the same opinions as several have posted in this thread. After practicing for several years now and seeing it first hand almost daily my opinions have changed dramatically on the subject.
Just a few things to think about.
How fast does someone have to be going for you to be injured when they hit you?
Are you willing to stand with your back turned to me and let me hit you with my car at 2mph? 5? 10? Do you think you might have some injuries as a result?
How much should treatment cost? Is there such thing as too much care if it is you that is trying to get better? Wouldn't you want everything possible to be done to get you back to "normal"?
If someone is truly injured don't you agree that they should be cared for up to "pre accident status"?
Are kids immune from the same injuries as adults in the same accident?
Should kids be treated cheaper than an adult?
Should treatment only include symptoms or should prevention of future problems be prevented if possible? An example of this would be muscle damage that requires PT for a period of time that maybe can't be started until after symptoms subside.


As far as settlements: How much should someone get? One minute they are minding their own business, the next minute they have a whiplash injury, headaches, severe neck pain, or herniated disc in their neck. Those injuries may prevent sleep, they will experience pain that they wouldn't have otherwise. Time off of work, multiple trips to a Dr or PT. (what a hassle) What if they need an MRI and have major issues with small spaces. Side effects to the pain meds they have to take? What about the degenerative arthritis and associated health issues that develop as a result of the injuries? Is it right that someone wants some monetary compensation for all of that? What is the number?

My personal experience has been that some seemingly minor accidents have left a patient in severe pain for weeks or months. Where as some more severe accidents require no care at all. There are a ton of factors involved beyond the speed and how much damage there is to a car. I have turned folks down for care because I saw no reason and felt they were just looking for compensation. I have also put patients under care because they needed it knowing that I would have to write off the bill because there was no insurance. I also believe that the majority of docs and PT's out there practice the same way if they can.

I don't disagree that people do get hurt, but seriously?

I just had someone pull out in front of me a couple weeks ago, I was going 15-20 when I hit her. I don't consider myself in great shape but I'm more sore leaving the gym. I didn't have a mark on me from the seat belt, nothing. Yes, it was lucky neither I or the other driver were injured.

If I get bumped into from behind at less then 10 mph, and have severe "whiplash" and pain, etc, I personally would think that there was probably something else going on in the first place that was aggrivated.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

If I get bumped into from behind at less then 10 mph, and have severe "whiplash" and pain, etc, I personally would think that there was probably something else going on in the first place that was aggrivated.

Yeah, an aggravated checking account.

From the field perspective, a large number of these claims start from crap and end in the sewer. Between vehicle engineering both internally and externally and basic physics, these are an absolute joke and a cashout payday hiding under the subjective guise of pain and suffering.

All in the pursuit of a frickin' check.

[SoonerStormchaser]

The wife and I got rear ended about a month ago at a stoplight...car that hit us was going about 10 mph. Ironically, it must've hit the sweet spot because there wasn't a single ding on either car.
Yah, my neck hurt for a few hours afterwards...yes it was her fault...but we exchanged information and went on our merry way. I'm not going to go to town on someone just because I got dinged a bit...I could go on a sortie tomorrow and hit turbulence and get dinged up too.

[AlbqSooner]

On the other hand, if your limits (or even the fact that you're insured) are admissible, you get juries doing things like "Hey, he's not going to pay it anyhow, the insurance company will!"

I did not make myself clear. Policy limits must be disclosed upon request of the Plaintiff. Neither policy limits or that fact of insurance coverage or the lack thereof are admissble in Court. It is simply a means of discovering how much coverage there is. This is helpful to both sides. If you have a colorable claim but questionable amount of damage, knowing the the policy limit is $10k as distinguished from $500k makes it a lot less likely an insurer will hold out over the long haul. They are more likely to offer limits in settlement and be done with it. Conversely, If plaintiff has a colorable claim and substantial, legitimate injuries they are not likely to agree to settle for $25k unless they know that that is the policy limit and the defendant is pretty much an empty pocket other than the policy.

When I left Oklahoma in '87, policy limits were not discoverable at all.

[AlbqSooner]

usually, no. There is something called "negligent entrustment" which could be claimed against the owner of the vehicle, but it probably doesn't cause more insurance to kick in.

It is possible for a parent IN OKLAHOMA to be called upon to answer to some claims against the minor, but it's unusual.

Florida has the "dangerous instrumentality" doctrine. If you own a car and someone is driving it with your permission, the owner is jointly and severally liable with the driver in the event of a claim, unless Plaintiff's attorney is such a nimrod that he does not name the owner in his suit. No negligent entrustment is required.

[Okla-homey]

Man it would be nice if the world really were as black and white as you try and make it out to be.

I dwell in a philosophical land where people have to prove their claims with objective evidence. Soft tissue injuries requiring treatment in properly restrained and healthy small children arising from extremely low-speed MVA's cannot be proven. That's all.

[Okla-homey]

Florida has the "dangerous instrumentality" doctrine. If you own a car and someone is driving it with your permission, the owner is jointly and severally liable with the driver in the event of a claim, unless Plaintiff's attorney is such a nimrod that he does not name the owner in his suit. No negligent entrustment is required.

Yikes!

[Okla-homey]

I did not make myself clear. Policy limits must be disclosed upon request of the Plaintiff. Neither policy limits or that fact of insurance coverage or the lack thereof are admissble in Court. It is simply a means of discovering how much coverage there is. This is helpful to both sides. If you have a colorable claim but questionable amount of damage, knowing the the policy limit is $10k as distinguished from $500k makes it a lot less likely an insurer will hold out over the long haul. They are more likely to offer limits in settlement and be done with it. Conversely, If plaintiff has a colorable claim and substantial, legitimate injuries they are not likely to agree to settle for $25k unless they know that that is the policy limit and the defendant is pretty much an empty pocket other than the policy.

When I left Oklahoma in '87, policy limits were not discoverable at all.

They're discoverable since '94. Tuller v. Shallcross, Okie Supremes (1994).

But as you would imagine, the mention of the fact Defendant has insurance in the presence of the jury ist verboten. Which is kinda goofy because even the most retarded juror knows people are required by law to have it.

In over-the-road trucking cases, in Oklahoma, a plaintiff can sue the truck company's liability carrier directly...which makes the whole "no talkee insurance" rule even sillier if you think about it.

[Frozen Sooner]

I did not make myself clear. Policy limits must be disclosed upon request of the Plaintiff. Neither policy limits or that fact of insurance coverage or the lack thereof are admissble in Court. It is simply a means of discovering how much coverage there is. This is helpful to both sides. If you have a colorable claim but questionable amount of damage, knowing the the policy limit is $10k as distinguished from $500k makes it a lot less likely an insurer will hold out over the long haul. They are more likely to offer limits in settlement and be done with it. Conversely, If plaintiff has a colorable claim and substantial, legitimate injuries they are not likely to agree to settle for $25k unless they know that that is the policy limit and the defendant is pretty much an empty pocket other than the policy.

When I left Oklahoma in '87, policy limits were not discoverable at all.

Gotcha. I think under the federal rules they're not even discoverable, but I could be wrong-not probative to a material fact, not likely to lead to discovery of evidence probative to a material fact.

[Crucifax Autumn]

But as you would imagine, the mention of the fact Defendant has insurance in the presence of the jury ist verboten. Which is kinda goofy because even the most retarded juror knows people are required by law to have it.


Yeah, but even the most retarded juror knows that not all drivers follow the law and actually HAVE said insurance.

Those retarded juries could then be influenced heavily by their feelings toward insurance companies or, conversely, drivers that don't follow the law.

Or something...I'm not a lawyer, just a retarded juror.

or is that ruh-tarded? I must have a hangover.

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, but even the most retarded juror knows that not all drivers follow the law and actually HAVE said insurance.

Those retarded juries could then be influenced heavily by their feelings toward insurance companies or, conversely, drivers that don't follow the law.

Or something...I'm not a lawyer, just a retarded juror.

or is that ruh-tarded? I must have a hangover.

Think about it. Jurors realize some people don't have insurance despite the state law requiring same, but they can probably figure out they wouldn't be sitting there hearing the case if there were no insurance because the plaintiff's lawyer wouldn't have spent the money to take it to trial unless there were.

Put another way, what would be the point of suing some insurance-less dirtbag and eventually winning a judgment at trial if the defendant has no money to pay it?

[Skysooner]

Think about it. Jurors realize some people don't have insurance despite the state law requiring same, but they can probably figure out they wouldn't be sitting there hearing the case if there were no insurance because the plaintiff's lawyer wouldn't have spent the money to take it to trial unless there were.

Put another way, what would be the point of suing some insurance-less dirtbag and eventually winning a judgment at trial if the defendant has no money to pay it?

This is the reason I'm getting sued for just over $400,000 for a rear bump at a few mph. $500,000 limit here.

[Okla-homey]

Gotcha. I think under the federal rules they're not even discoverable, but I could be wrong.

Bullbutter. Check FRCP 26, Padawan.

[Frozen Sooner]

Ah. My bad, you're correct. Still not admissible, but discoverable. There's a reason Civ Pro was my worst grade so far.

[StoopTroup]

I think I'm gonna call a cab from here on out. ;)