|
Hi,
I'm being sued in superior court in California.
I was in an auto "accident" which resulted in some major damage to my
small car (totalled) but the other driver had deliberately applied the
brakes to cause a collision and his damage (to his pickup truck) was
only a bent rear bumper.
I was insured at the time. But the other party is going to sue me now
for a HUGE amount of money claiming pain and suffering, loss of work
due to all the things that he could think of.
My question is, does the insurance provider have a responsibility to
provide legal representation in my case? I WAS insured at the time of
the accident, but have changed insurers shortly after the accident
because they raised my rates (IMHO) excessively when I tried to
transfer.
What I think happened is that the other party didn't like the
settlement and rejected it. I heard from the insurer that they offered
the other party half of their claim. Don't know what that amount was
off-hand.
Do I get to have the insurer provide a lawyer for my trial? Someone
told me that I do. I'm hoping he's right.
BTW: I'm too poor to afford a lawyer. Otherwise I would've obtained
one myself.
Thanks,
Don
|
| |
| |
Don,
You are being sued in California. You were involved in an auto accident
and were probably ar fault. You have recently changed insurers. You ask for
advice.
Your insurance that was in effect at the time of the accident should
cover this, so read the contract or call your previous insurer. Be sure to
send a copy of the court papers that you have received to them. It is likely
that your previous insurer will be contractually obligated to provide you
with a lawyer and to pay damages up to the limits of your policy.
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:40:33 -0400, Don <daveecom@gmail.com> wrote:
What I think happened is that the other party didn't like the
settlement and rejected it. I heard from the insurer that they offered
the other party half of their claim. Don't know what that amount was
off-hand.
While obviously you should read your insurance policy, that would be
pretty standard. I doubt it would be legally sufficient insurance if
they are not required to defend.
Do I get to have the insurer provide a lawyer for my trial? Someone
told me that I do. I'm hoping he's right.
BTW: I'm too poor to afford a lawyer. Otherwise I would've obtained
one myself.
You are, of course, entitled to hire your own counsel as well.
Some people do, as they feel insurance company counsel serve the
interests of the insurance company more than their customer.
However, whether or not that is the case, they are also very
experienced with the kind of litigation involved here. I think
in most cases they prove adequate.
There may be free legal resources for civil matters like this
where you could get advice specific to California. Obviously,
you shouldn't discuss any details of the accident or litigation
strategy publicly.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 25, 7:40 am, Don <davee...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm being sued in superior court in California.
I was in an auto "accident" which resulted in some major damage to my
small car (totalled) but the other driver had deliberately applied the
brakes to cause a collision and his damage (to his pickup truck) was
only a bent rear bumper.
I'm presuming you told you insurance company about the collision
already and mentioned your suspicion (along with any supporting
evidence) that the guy in front of you deliberately caused the
crash. Insurers love to investigate this kind of stuff and come down
hard on attempted insurance fraud so I'm fairly confident they would
not ignore such information if you shared it with them.
I was insured at the time. But the other party is going to sue me now
for a HUGE amount of money claiming pain and suffering, loss of work
due to all the things that he could think of.
Or that his lawyer could think of, actually. There is nothing at all
unusual about including the kitchen sink in a boilerplate complaint --
it's what most lawyers do, to protect themselves against malpracticing
their own client in case they forget and leave something out. Ditto
as to the "ad damnum" (the dollar amount claimed) -- the attorney will
set that figure at a number _higher_ than anything he thinks the jury
is likely to award his client, because how would his client feel if
they only asked for 50 grand and the jury came back with an award of
half a million? He would feel like suing his own lawyer for selling
him short, that's how. The language of a standard complaint doesn't
mean they really intend to pursue every element they allege, and even
if they do, it certainly doesn't mean they are going to get it, or get
it in anywhere near the amounts claimed.
My question is, does the insurance provider have a responsibility to
provide legal representation in my case?
Yes, they do. Tell them immediately that you have been sued, and
they will take it from there.
I WAS insured at the time of
the accident, but have changed insurers shortly after the accident
The company that insured you at the time of the crash is the one you
should call. Most auto policies are written as "occurrence" policies
(the insurance covers you if the incident happens during the covered
time period) rather than "claims-made" policies (which cover you for
claims that are brought to your attention during the covered period
even though the alleged negligence may have happened years earlier).
Don't worry too much about this, that's what you have insurance for.
They will hire a lawyer to defend you, and while they may ultimately
settle, chances are very slim that you will have any out of pocket
loss. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
Don <daveecom@gmail.com> wrote:
I was in an auto "accident" which resulted in some major damage to
my small car (totalled) but the other driver had deliberately
applied the brakes to cause a collision and his damage (to his
pickup truck) was only a bent rear bumper.
I was insured at the time. But the other party is going to sue me
now for a HUGE amount of money claiming pain and suffering, loss
of work due to all the things that he could think of.
My question is, does the insurance provider have a responsibility
to provide legal representation in my case?
Yes, it is probable that the company that insured you at the time of
the accident should defend you. Just notify them and they should take
care of it.
Stu
|
| |
| |
Don,
I was in an auto "accident" which resulted in some major damage to my
small car (totalled) but the other driver had deliberately applied the
brakes to cause a collision and his damage (to his pickup truck) was
only a bent rear bumper.
In other words, you were following too close and rear-ended him.
That's a really tough one to defend against.
I was insured at the time. But the other party is going to sue me now
for a HUGE amount of money claiming pain and suffering, loss of work
due to all the things that he could think of.
My question is, does the insurance provider have a responsibility to
provide legal representation in my case?
Nope. Not unless your policy provides for it. Now, they may want to
provide representation to protect their interests, as they will have to
pay out what the Court orders (up to your policy maximum).
What I think happened is that the other party didn't like the
settlement and rejected it.
Probably. He's likely got some injuries since you hit him hard enough
to total your car.
If you have a huge policy, then the insurance company may want to
protect themselves and try to get this guy to accept less or take their
chances in Court that they might win or get a reduced amount. But if
you have only liability or a small policy, you're on your own, I think.
You're not going to be able to win when it comes to fault. The fault
is clearly yours. Your only chance is to show that his injuries are not
as bad as he claims (good luck!) or that the pain and suffering he is
asking for is out of line (a better chance).
Lighthope
Pearls of Wisdom - Priests would make great husbands. They already took
vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience!
--== TIGERS' QUEST - http://www.tigersquest.com
--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS - http://www.dwad.net
--== A CHRISTMAS SPECIAL - http://christmas.dwad.net
|
| |
| |
Don,
You're in California, and you are the victim of a common insurance
scam where the car in front of you slammed on its brakes and you
crashed into it. The other driver is suing you for big bucks.
My question is, does the insurance provider have a responsibility to
provide legal representation in my case?
Yes.
I WAS insured at the time of the accident, but have changed
insurers shortly after the accident because they raised my rates
(IMHO) excessively when I tried to transfer.
The insurer at the time of the accident is responsible to you, both
for all the costs (less deductible) and for legal representation if
required.
Now, even though I sympathize with you--
You complain that they raised your rates. Even though this is a
common scam, it wouldn't have worked if you had been keeping a proper
following distance, as the law requires. So in addition to your being
legally at fault (which justifies raising your rates) you bear at
least some of the blame for the crash. Sure, the other party almost
certainly did it deliberately, but it wouldn't have worked if you'd
been driving \in a legal manner.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
|
