Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
Might be getting sued
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FordSVTFan" data-source="post: 8873553" data-attributes="member: 2243"><p>I certainly hope so since I am licensed attorney in a few states.:rolling:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>While you are right that they cant squeeze blood out of turnip they can get a judgment and a garnishment against future earnings/assets. They are already suing him as they are going against his insurance company. The judgment will be for a defined dollar amount and of that his insurance company will pay to the policy limits the rest will be his obligations. So there are not going to be two suits. </p><p></p><p>Under the theory of Comparative Negligence the other couple has some complicity here. They created an unsafe situation. They likely didnt do what the California code requires for broken down motor vehicles, as it is usually entailed and most people dont have the ability to comply because it often requires cones/flags/etc and not just 4 way flashers. That being said he didnt operate his vehicle in a safe manner and he couldnt stop in time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You should read your policy and see if you can force your insurance company to defend instead of settling. A lot of companies will settle a claim for limits of the policy when they are low because they know the litigation would cost more. This could be an expensive litigation as multiple experts are required. </p><p></p><p>If you can force your insurance company to litigate I would recommend that because they would have to hire the experts. First off her medical records would have to prove that she delivered early because of the accident and then the accident and early delivery was directly relational to the childs epilepsy. Although there is a genetic component to some case of epilepsy it isnt only genetic. However, once she puts that one the table her entire medical history is open season. For instance does she or the baby's father have epilepsy? Does anyone in her family have it? Also, did she miss any prenatal doctor visits? Did she drink during pregnancy, smoke, do drugs, do any risky sports, etc. These could all lead to preterm delivery. </p><p></p><p>Then her statements thank you for wrecking her car come into play as it can be presented that their NEW car was stopped not because of a mechanical problem but because they fully understand the dangerous nature of driving on that bridge and they were hoping to get it totaled and that is why you were thanked.</p><p></p><p>I am willing to be after they find out about you financial situation that they will settle for policy limits if your insurance company agrees.</p><p></p><p>That being said, GO SEE AN ATTORNEY!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FordSVTFan, post: 8873553, member: 2243"] I certainly hope so since I am licensed attorney in a few states.:rolling: While you are right that they cant squeeze blood out of turnip they can get a judgment and a garnishment against future earnings/assets. They are already suing him as they are going against his insurance company. The judgment will be for a defined dollar amount and of that his insurance company will pay to the policy limits the rest will be his obligations. So there are not going to be two suits. Under the theory of Comparative Negligence the other couple has some complicity here. They created an unsafe situation. They likely didnt do what the California code requires for broken down motor vehicles, as it is usually entailed and most people dont have the ability to comply because it often requires cones/flags/etc and not just 4 way flashers. That being said he didnt operate his vehicle in a safe manner and he couldnt stop in time. You should read your policy and see if you can force your insurance company to defend instead of settling. A lot of companies will settle a claim for limits of the policy when they are low because they know the litigation would cost more. This could be an expensive litigation as multiple experts are required. If you can force your insurance company to litigate I would recommend that because they would have to hire the experts. First off her medical records would have to prove that she delivered early because of the accident and then the accident and early delivery was directly relational to the childs epilepsy. Although there is a genetic component to some case of epilepsy it isnt only genetic. However, once she puts that one the table her entire medical history is open season. For instance does she or the baby's father have epilepsy? Does anyone in her family have it? Also, did she miss any prenatal doctor visits? Did she drink during pregnancy, smoke, do drugs, do any risky sports, etc. These could all lead to preterm delivery. Then her statements thank you for wrecking her car come into play as it can be presented that their NEW car was stopped not because of a mechanical problem but because they fully understand the dangerous nature of driving on that bridge and they were hoping to get it totaled and that is why you were thanked. I am willing to be after they find out about you financial situation that they will settle for policy limits if your insurance company agrees. That being said, GO SEE AN ATTORNEY! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Donut Shop
Might be getting sued
Top