Short story. Local kid rolls his truck on a rural road. Friend dies. Tragic.
http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/photos/galleries/17072911-417/lockport-teen-charged-with-reckless-homicide-in-death-of-jay-vana.html
Family sues kid and dad stating he should not have let his son drive knowing he was a poor driver.
Who is getting sued next? Me?
You should already have coverage on your auto policy. People sue all the time for wrongful death.
I wish a guy could buy a comprehensive liability policy. Here is the wording: "If anything Jim does, thinks, or owns, causes someone to be damaged, he's covered."
As it is, I have car liability, house liability, business liability...
I thought you could. I thought it was a general umbrella policy. My agent keeps trying to get me to buy a $1.0-2.0 MIL one
Correct, get the umbrella policy that covers everything up and above your current policies.
It is just "sad" to have to go to these extremes because of tragedy profiteering....
nocones wrote: I thought you could. I thought it was a general umbrella policy. My agent keeps trying to get me to buy a $1.0-2.0 MIL one
I also specify high pressure hoses at work. According to SF lady; the key word is PERSONAL so my work covers my mistakes. I told her to look at $1,000,000. I will advise.
We shall see whether the Canadian market had grown to include an "umbrella," I guess. Was nothing 15 years ago.
Do you have lots of disposable income? If not, you are not worth suing, so-no.
MrJoshua wrote: Do you have lots of disposable income? If not, you are not worth suing, so-no.
Just because you don't have much to take, doesn't mean that someone won't sue you anyway. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. If you have appropriate coverage, they will pay for your legal defense, which even on a frivolous case can easily run $5000+.
Sonic wrote:MrJoshua wrote: Do you have lots of disposable income? If not, you are not worth suing, so-no.Just because you don't have much to take, doesn't mean that someone won't sue you anyway. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. If you have appropriate coverage, they will pay for your legal defense, which even on a frivolous case can easily run $5000+.
True and false. Hire an attorney to defend yourself and you pay that attorney $5k. Hire an attorney to tell them it is stupid to pursue someone with no money and you pay them for a few hours work.
They can certainly attach assets if they win a judgment against you.
Sonic wrote: They can certainly attach assets if they win a judgment against you.
Yeah, I guess I defined my stance poorly with the "disposable income" statement. I now change it to "anything worth suing for" 
Let me clarify: The court will not make you homeless and unable to support yourself and your family unless you were raping underage nuns for profit.
If you are determined to be at fault there is a step somewhere towards the end of the proceedings where they decide how much you can pay for a settlement. The amount you can pay primarily takes into account your INSURANCE LIMIT. If you have little or no liability insurance it considers your assets Vs: your mortgage, feeding your family, your reasonable transportation costs, your health care, etc...
If you can get an attorney to point out the fact that you have no money or assets early on the suit against you, you will not be pursued.
Streetwiseguy wrote: We shall see whether the Canadian market had grown to include an "umbrella," I guess. Was nothing 15 years ago.
I've had it with SF for probably 10 years now.
MrJoshua wrote: Yeah, I guess I defined my stance poorly with the "disposable income" statement. I now change it to "anything worth suing for"
What about Retirement accounts? I know in my case if I was "At fault" for something they could wind up with a decent payout if they liquidated my assets. I would hope any American over 50 with any hope of retireing would have an amount of Bank that would be Worth persuing if it's only going to cost you 1/3 of the judgment.
nocones wrote: What about Retirement accounts? I know in my case if I was "At fault" for something they could wind up with a decent payout if they liquidated my assets. I would hope any American over 50 with any hope of retireing would have an amount of Bank that would be Worth persuing if it's only going to cost you 1/3 of the judgment.
I believe it varies a lot by state. IIRC, the reason OJ Simpson moved to Florida was because it protected his house (a huge one, naturally) and retirement accounts from the civil suit. Of course, now he's in jail anyway, so...
Having paid for my car disease from defending liability suits, I can tell you that you can never have enough insurance. In most states, the court or jury will never know whether you have insurance; the judgment granted is based upon the facts of the case. With rising medical bills, you can never have enough insurance. Two examples: 1) a wreck with a semi property damage alone can be over $100k 2) guest passenger medical bills were over $12k for wrist and arm injury when drunk driver hit a tree settlement was $41k
I have $3m umbrella and I am not sure it is enough. Imagine the headline in newspaper: Racing lawyer's trailer breaks lose of tow vehicle and kills all members of local family
If you have any assets you should have a liability umbrella. With the multiline discounts and what not mine is less than $10/month. You would be - or rather might be - shocked at what your assets add up to once you put them all down. And if they're filing a lawsuit anyway, adding you as a defendant isn't going to cost much. And it doesn't cost anything for them to ask for more money.
Nocones is right, if you're past your whippersnapper days and hope to ever retire, you've got a bunch of assets sitting around that will make a lawyer drool.
Check your Homeowners policy. Most of them include liability coverage, except for negligent driving, that covers almost everything else, even if you do something stupid away from home, as long as it's not involving a motor vehicle. Few people realize this.
You'll need to log in to post.
