O.K. Let's Talk ' INSURANCE RATES '
08-04-2002, 05:28 AM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whooow, dude!
See if you can get that ticket wiped. Many states offer the option to take a class or something and have the ticket permanently removed from your record, since this is your first ticket in a long time. You had better do that if at all possible. If you do this, you don't need to inform your insurance company of it, and they should never discover it either.
See if you can get that ticket wiped. Many states offer the option to take a class or something and have the ticket permanently removed from your record, since this is your first ticket in a long time. You had better do that if at all possible. If you do this, you don't need to inform your insurance company of it, and they should never discover it either.
So.. the only sure way to lower your rates are:
Drive Safely
Get Older
or Get Married (not a really good reason for lowering your insurance, but what ever it takes sometimes!)
Jim
08-04-2002, 07:35 AM
#22
Charter Member #57
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think this will help you TXSTYLE unless you are tied to the military as a reservist, child of military or such.
USAA quoted me $320/ 6 mos. They said that they don't have anything on me but I did have a ticket in 1999 for 80 something in a 55 and further back in 1998 for 91 in a 55. 100/300/100 with $500 deductible. No UIM/PIP. Corpus is not on the low end of the range according to the statistics.
USAA quoted me $320/ 6 mos. They said that they don't have anything on me but I did have a ticket in 1999 for 80 something in a 55 and further back in 1998 for 91 in a 55. 100/300/100 with $500 deductible. No UIM/PIP. Corpus is not on the low end of the range according to the statistics.
08-04-2002, 10:36 PM
#24
Charter Member #09
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mount Prospect, IL (Chicago)
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I pay $450/6 months now for my 2001 Subaru Outback Limited with Allstate. Adding the Z with bring my total to about $750/6 months for both cars. I am 33, single, good driver rate, multiple policy discount, Suburban Chicago zip code. $500 collision deductible, $250 comprehensive, high level of coverage.
Just for laughs I quoted a new ZO6 and M3. The vette was only about $85 more than the Z for 6 months and the M3 was about $60 more.
Just for laughs I quoted a new ZO6 and M3. The vette was only about $85 more than the Z for 6 months and the M3 was about $60 more.
08-05-2002, 01:13 AM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
While it seems unusual at first glance, keep in mind that insurance rates are based on many factors. The price or value of the vehicle being insured is just one of the factors (and a fairly minor one at that.)
The Z is or will be classified as a sports car, not a sport coupe, sport sedan, luxury sports sedan, etc. As such, it will be viewed as a higher risk vehicle. People who drive sports cars tend to drive faster, push the envelope of manuevering, etc. Like it or not, statistically these driving behaviors increase the risk of an accident. That is why your premium will be higher for the Z even though its value is somewhat less. It's the risk of a loss more than the value that counts.
Ways to keep your premiums down:
Higher deductibles
Lower limits (Be careful here. The purpose of liability coverage is to protect your assets. Carry enough coverage to do that but there is no need to carry extremely high limits unless you have a lot of assets to protect.)
Discounts Check with your insurance company for a list of discounts that are available. Here are some that are pretty widely available.
Anti-theft discount. The Z comes with sufficient anti-theft protection to qualify for a discount in most states.
Defensive driving discount. Take a defensive driving class to lower premiums as much as 15% for as long as 3 years.
Good student discount. For those younger individuals attending school, some insurers offer a discount for maintaining high GPA's.
Most important, maintain a clean driving record. Convictions and at-fault accidents will drive up premiums faster than anything else.
Ways not to keep your premiums down:
Provide your insurance company with false or misleading information about:
How often you drive the car
How far you drive the car
Who the primary driver of the vehicle is
Where the vehicle is garaged
Any other information the request of you.
Providing false information in the application for insurance is fraud and can result in denial of your claim and that of the other party you injured if you are at fault. That means you would face a possible lawsuit and personal liability for their damages. You could also face criminal charges.
I have been in the insurance industry for 11 years as a claims adjuster and a trainer (for those who will undoubtedly question my credentials for this post.)
The Z is or will be classified as a sports car, not a sport coupe, sport sedan, luxury sports sedan, etc. As such, it will be viewed as a higher risk vehicle. People who drive sports cars tend to drive faster, push the envelope of manuevering, etc. Like it or not, statistically these driving behaviors increase the risk of an accident. That is why your premium will be higher for the Z even though its value is somewhat less. It's the risk of a loss more than the value that counts.
Ways to keep your premiums down:
Higher deductibles
Lower limits (Be careful here. The purpose of liability coverage is to protect your assets. Carry enough coverage to do that but there is no need to carry extremely high limits unless you have a lot of assets to protect.)
Discounts Check with your insurance company for a list of discounts that are available. Here are some that are pretty widely available.
Anti-theft discount. The Z comes with sufficient anti-theft protection to qualify for a discount in most states.
Defensive driving discount. Take a defensive driving class to lower premiums as much as 15% for as long as 3 years.
Good student discount. For those younger individuals attending school, some insurers offer a discount for maintaining high GPA's.
Most important, maintain a clean driving record. Convictions and at-fault accidents will drive up premiums faster than anything else.
Ways not to keep your premiums down:
Provide your insurance company with false or misleading information about:
How often you drive the car
How far you drive the car
Who the primary driver of the vehicle is
Where the vehicle is garaged
Any other information the request of you.
Providing false information in the application for insurance is fraud and can result in denial of your claim and that of the other party you injured if you are at fault. That means you would face a possible lawsuit and personal liability for their damages. You could also face criminal charges.
I have been in the insurance industry for 11 years as a claims adjuster and a trainer (for those who will undoubtedly question my credentials for this post.)
08-05-2002, 03:44 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance rate - NC
I live in Charlotte, NC and have 1 speeding ticket (about 1 year ago) and Erie Insurance quoted me $598 every six months. That is with a $500 dedutable and full coverage - 100k, 100k, etc...My wife has a 1997 Maxima SE with one ticket (1 year ago) and we have our home insurance with Erie Insurance. I had Erie Insurance when I lived in Ohio and it was by far the lowest insurance I could find. I was with State Farm before I changed. I had one claim about 4 years ago and they were great. When I moved down here I stuck with them. I have friends who are with them and we have never had a problem. I'm not sure if they are in every state but it's worth a phone call if you are looking to change or get quote. With 2 tickets within the last year, $598 doesn't seem that bad. Later dayzzzzzzzzzzzz
08-05-2002, 05:57 AM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
HZ,
What about no-fault states like Florida, where regardless of who is at fault, you both get stuck with a rate hike. A friend of mine got rear ended, (they were both at a stop sign and she started forward and never stopped). Neither was ticketed with the accident despite the fact that it was a clearly evident that she struck him. His rate jump 22% at renewal.
Also note that (at least in Florida), one in three drivers have no insurance, so either the guy in front or behind is driving without insurance, so the insurance companies inflate prices to cover these morons.
I figure within the next 5 years, the practice of driving without insurance will be more common, just like people in California own homes with no insurance. Simply because it is getting more and more expensive to insure a car, and more people drive without it anyway.
Jim
What about no-fault states like Florida, where regardless of who is at fault, you both get stuck with a rate hike. A friend of mine got rear ended, (they were both at a stop sign and she started forward and never stopped). Neither was ticketed with the accident despite the fact that it was a clearly evident that she struck him. His rate jump 22% at renewal.
Also note that (at least in Florida), one in three drivers have no insurance, so either the guy in front or behind is driving without insurance, so the insurance companies inflate prices to cover these morons.
I figure within the next 5 years, the practice of driving without insurance will be more common, just like people in California own homes with no insurance. Simply because it is getting more and more expensive to insure a car, and more people drive without it anyway.
Jim
08-05-2002, 06:42 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
A common misconception about no-fault insurance is that fault is not assigned in an accident or that neither party is considered at fault.
No-fault laws basically restrict your right to sue someone regardless of whether or not they are at fault. In most states with no-fault laws you are only allowed to file suit if you meet a certain threshold. This can be a certain dollar amount of medical treatment, or a particular type of injury such as a fracture to a weight-bearing bone, or permanent disability.
Another common misconception is that a ticket means someone is at fault in the accident or that the police officer decides who is at fault. The police officer's primary jobs at an accident scene are to record the facts as best as possible, clear the accident scene to make it safe, and to issue any citations he feels are warranted. His report may list his opinion of the circumstances that caused the accident, but that does not mean the person ticketed is at fault.
Regarding insurance companies "inflating prices" to cover the uninsured morons (I like that as a new definition for UM coverage by the way
) keep in mind that all insurance companies, like most businesses, are in it to make a profit. They cannot afford to pay out more in claims than they take in from premiums. A few years of a business practice like that and your insurance company would go out of business and be unable to pay any claims at all.
I know that many people rank insurance professionals on a level with car dealers (a dirty word on this board ) and lawyers, but most of us are honest professionals trying to take care of our customers as best we can within the limits of the insurance policy.
BTW, here in Texas, almost half the drivers are uninsured. I always tell people that means they should look at the car behind them (or in front or to the side) and assume they have no insurance. It helps you keep a healthy distance whenever possible.
No-fault laws basically restrict your right to sue someone regardless of whether or not they are at fault. In most states with no-fault laws you are only allowed to file suit if you meet a certain threshold. This can be a certain dollar amount of medical treatment, or a particular type of injury such as a fracture to a weight-bearing bone, or permanent disability.
Another common misconception is that a ticket means someone is at fault in the accident or that the police officer decides who is at fault. The police officer's primary jobs at an accident scene are to record the facts as best as possible, clear the accident scene to make it safe, and to issue any citations he feels are warranted. His report may list his opinion of the circumstances that caused the accident, but that does not mean the person ticketed is at fault.
Regarding insurance companies "inflating prices" to cover the uninsured morons (I like that as a new definition for UM coverage by the way
) keep in mind that all insurance companies, like most businesses, are in it to make a profit. They cannot afford to pay out more in claims than they take in from premiums. A few years of a business practice like that and your insurance company would go out of business and be unable to pay any claims at all.I know that many people rank insurance professionals on a level with car dealers (a dirty word on this board
) and lawyers, but most of us are honest professionals trying to take care of our customers as best we can within the limits of the insurance policy.BTW, here in Texas, almost half the drivers are uninsured. I always tell people that means they should look at the car behind them (or in front or to the side) and assume they have no insurance. It helps you keep a healthy distance whenever possible.
08-05-2002, 08:12 PM
#29
Banned
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The GYM!
Posts: 9,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by HZ-130Nav
A common misconception about no-fault insurance is that fault is not assigned in an accident or that neither party is considered at fault.
No-fault laws basically restrict your right to sue someone regardless of whether or not they are at fault. In most states with no-fault laws you are only allowed to file suit if you meet a certain threshold. This can be a certain dollar amount of medical treatment, or a particular type of injury such as a fracture to a weight-bearing bone, or permanent disability.
Another common misconception is that a ticket means someone is at fault in the accident or that the police officer decides who is at fault. The police officer's primary jobs at an accident scene are to record the facts as best as possible, clear the accident scene to make it safe, and to issue any citations he feels are warranted. His report may list his opinion of the circumstances that caused the accident, but that does not mean the person ticketed is at fault.
Regarding insurance companies "inflating prices" to cover the uninsured morons (I like that as a new definition for UM coverage by the way ) keep in mind that all insurance companies, like most businesses, are in it to make a profit. They cannot afford to pay out more in claims than they take in from premiums. A few years of a business practice like that and your insurance company would go out of business and be unable to pay any claims at all.
I know that many people rank insurance professionals on a level with car dealers (a dirty word on this board ) and lawyers, but most of us are honest professionals trying to take care of our customers as best we can within the limits of the insurance policy.
BTW, here in Texas, almost half the drivers are uninsured. I always tell people that means they should look at the car behind them (or in front or to the side) and assume they have no insurance. It helps you keep a healthy distance whenever possible.
A common misconception about no-fault insurance is that fault is not assigned in an accident or that neither party is considered at fault.
No-fault laws basically restrict your right to sue someone regardless of whether or not they are at fault. In most states with no-fault laws you are only allowed to file suit if you meet a certain threshold. This can be a certain dollar amount of medical treatment, or a particular type of injury such as a fracture to a weight-bearing bone, or permanent disability.
Another common misconception is that a ticket means someone is at fault in the accident or that the police officer decides who is at fault. The police officer's primary jobs at an accident scene are to record the facts as best as possible, clear the accident scene to make it safe, and to issue any citations he feels are warranted. His report may list his opinion of the circumstances that caused the accident, but that does not mean the person ticketed is at fault.
Regarding insurance companies "inflating prices" to cover the uninsured morons (I like that as a new definition for UM coverage by the way
) keep in mind that all insurance companies, like most businesses, are in it to make a profit. They cannot afford to pay out more in claims than they take in from premiums. A few years of a business practice like that and your insurance company would go out of business and be unable to pay any claims at all.I know that many people rank insurance professionals on a level with car dealers (a dirty word on this board
) and lawyers, but most of us are honest professionals trying to take care of our customers as best we can within the limits of the insurance policy.BTW, here in Texas, almost half the drivers are uninsured. I always tell people that means they should look at the car behind them (or in front or to the side) and assume they have no insurance. It helps you keep a healthy distance whenever possible.
And by the way people, good stuff here, thanks for all the advice!
08-06-2002, 04:26 AM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
HZ,
I don't know about TX, but in Florida, no fault, means no fault. As for suing, well in this mickey mouse state, people sue for just about ever reason under the sun. I was on a jury in a civil trial and the plaintiff in the class was suing a 14 year kid and his parents because the kid scratch his bimmer. The total damage was less than $500.00, but the guy want the parents to pay for repainting his car, because the repaint did not match perfectly! Oh, we did not award any damages either, and if we could, we would have charged him for our time and the courts time.
Jim
I don't know about TX, but in Florida, no fault, means no fault. As for suing, well in this mickey mouse state, people sue for just about ever reason under the sun. I was on a jury in a civil trial and the plaintiff in the class was suing a 14 year kid and his parents because the kid scratch his bimmer. The total damage was less than $500.00, but the guy want the parents to pay for repainting his car, because the repaint did not match perfectly! Oh, we did not award any damages either, and if we could, we would have charged him for our time and the courts time.
Jim
08-07-2002, 03:17 AM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
I won't bother arguing with you other than to say, even in Florida, no-fault does not mean that nobody is at fault. It strictly restricts your right to sue. As in most states, no-fault laws do not apply to property damage claims, only to injuries so your experience on the jury would involve a loss that is not subject to the no-fault law.
Here is an exerpt (long) of the Florida No Fault Statute:
-------------------------------------------------------------
627.737 Tort exemption; limitation on right to damages; punitive damages.--
(1) Every owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, and every person or organization legally responsible for her or his acts or omissions, is hereby exempted from tort liability for damages because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of such motor vehicle in this state to the extent that the benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any exclusion authorized by ss. 627.730-627.7405, under any insurance policy or other method of security complying with the requirements of s. 627.733, or by an owner personally liable under s. 627.733 for the payment of such benefits, unless a person is entitled to maintain an action for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience for such injury under the provisions of subsection (2).
(2) In any action of tort brought against the owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, or against any person or organization legally responsible for her or his acts or omissions, a plaintiff may recover damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, or use of such motor vehicle only in the event that the injury or disease consists in whole or in part of:
(a) Significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function.
(b) Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement.
(c) Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement.
(d) Death.
(3) When a defendant, in a proceeding brought pursuant to ss. 627.730-627.7405, questions whether the plaintiff has met the requirements of subsection (2), then the defendant may file an appropriate motion with the court, and the court shall, on a one-time basis only, 30 days before the date set for the trial or the pretrial hearing, whichever is first, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it, ascertain whether the plaintiff will be able to submit some evidence that the plaintiff will meet the requirements of subsection (2). If the court finds that the plaintiff will not be able to submit such evidence, then the court shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim without prejudice.
----------------------------------------------------------
To cut through the legalese, you are only entitled to bring a suit for injury damages if your injury results in one of the four listed items.
Here is an exerpt (long) of the Florida No Fault Statute:
-------------------------------------------------------------
627.737 Tort exemption; limitation on right to damages; punitive damages.--
(1) Every owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, and every person or organization legally responsible for her or his acts or omissions, is hereby exempted from tort liability for damages because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of such motor vehicle in this state to the extent that the benefits described in s. 627.736(1) are payable for such injury, or would be payable but for any exclusion authorized by ss. 627.730-627.7405, under any insurance policy or other method of security complying with the requirements of s. 627.733, or by an owner personally liable under s. 627.733 for the payment of such benefits, unless a person is entitled to maintain an action for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience for such injury under the provisions of subsection (2).
(2) In any action of tort brought against the owner, registrant, operator, or occupant of a motor vehicle with respect to which security has been provided as required by ss. 627.730-627.7405, or against any person or organization legally responsible for her or his acts or omissions, a plaintiff may recover damages in tort for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, or use of such motor vehicle only in the event that the injury or disease consists in whole or in part of:
(a) Significant and permanent loss of an important bodily function.
(b) Permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement.
(c) Significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement.
(d) Death.
(3) When a defendant, in a proceeding brought pursuant to ss. 627.730-627.7405, questions whether the plaintiff has met the requirements of subsection (2), then the defendant may file an appropriate motion with the court, and the court shall, on a one-time basis only, 30 days before the date set for the trial or the pretrial hearing, whichever is first, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it, ascertain whether the plaintiff will be able to submit some evidence that the plaintiff will meet the requirements of subsection (2). If the court finds that the plaintiff will not be able to submit such evidence, then the court shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim without prejudice.
----------------------------------------------------------
To cut through the legalese, you are only entitled to bring a suit for injury damages if your injury results in one of the four listed items.
08-07-2002, 04:27 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man a lot of you are up there a little...I feel much better now thanks... Anyway My rate with Geico is pretty good. My Z and the wife's 01 Toyota Highlander together will run us 150 per month 1800 a year. We're both 30....She's never had a ticket and I haven't had one for 3 or 4 years now. I find this laughable because I was paying 120 a month with her car and a 1998 Avenger with 163 HP. I didn't want the Z to cut into my beer fund. It didn't.
Anyway My rate with Geico is pretty good. My Z and the wife's 01 Toyota Highlander together will run us 150 per month 1800 a year. We're both 30....She's never had a ticket and I haven't had one for 3 or 4 years now. I find this laughable because I was paying 120 a month with her car and a 1998 Avenger with 163 HP. I didn't want the Z to cut into my beer fund. It didn't.
08-07-2002, 05:46 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
HZ,
Not to drag this issue out, but anyone insured in Florida really needs to look at chapters 627-641 for the Florida No-Fault Laws.
627.731 Purpose.--The purpose of ss. 627.730-627.7405 is to provide for medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits, for motor vehicles required to be registered in this state and, with respect to motor vehicle accidents, a limitation on the right to claim damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience.
Please note, that this law does not restrict compensation to just medical, death or pain, but also inconvenience!
So, once again, in this mickey mouse state, we can and do sue for any reason under the sun (or rain, sleet, pothole ....)
Jim
Not to drag this issue out, but anyone insured in Florida really needs to look at chapters 627-641 for the Florida No-Fault Laws.
627.731 Purpose.--The purpose of ss. 627.730-627.7405 is to provide for medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits, for motor vehicles required to be registered in this state and, with respect to motor vehicle accidents, a limitation on the right to claim damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience.
Please note, that this law does not restrict compensation to just medical, death or pain, but also inconvenience!
So, once again, in this mickey mouse state, we can and do sue for any reason under the sun (or rain, sleet, pothole ....)
Jim
08-07-2002, 07:49 PM
#37
Banned
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The GYM!
Posts: 9,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jims2321
HZ,
Not to drag this issue out, but anyone insured in Florida really needs to look at chapters 627-641 for the Florida No-Fault Laws.
627.731 Purpose.--The purpose of ss. 627.730-627.7405 is to provide for medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits, for motor vehicles required to be registered in this state and, with respect to motor vehicle accidents, a limitation on the right to claim damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience.
Please note, that this law does not restrict compensation to just medical, death or pain, but also inconvenience!
So, once again, in this mickey mouse state, we can and do sue for any reason under the sun (or rain, sleet, pothole ....)
Jim
HZ,
Not to drag this issue out, but anyone insured in Florida really needs to look at chapters 627-641 for the Florida No-Fault Laws.
627.731 Purpose.--The purpose of ss. 627.730-627.7405 is to provide for medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits, for motor vehicles required to be registered in this state and, with respect to motor vehicle accidents, a limitation on the right to claim damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience.
Please note, that this law does not restrict compensation to just medical, death or pain, but also inconvenience!
So, once again, in this mickey mouse state, we can and do sue for any reason under the sun (or rain, sleet, pothole ....)
Jim
08-07-2002, 11:30 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nah,
Just had too much experience in my younger days with the FL legal system
And since I have become a homeowner, it has become even more important to know the written and unwritten laws in FL, because just about every cracker, developer, or politician is out to screw you over. Knowing the laws, has definitely saved my collective butt a few times.
Jim
Just had too much experience in my younger days with the FL legal system
And since I have become a homeowner, it has become even more important to know the written and unwritten laws in FL, because just about every cracker, developer, or politician is out to screw you over. Knowing the laws, has definitely saved my collective butt a few times.
Jim
08-08-2002, 02:42 AM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally posted by jims2321
HZ,
Not to drag this issue out, but anyone insured in Florida really needs to look at chapters 627-641 for the Florida No-Fault Laws.
627.731 Purpose.--The purpose of ss. 627.730-627.7405 is to provide for medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits
Through Personal Injury Protection coverage under your own policy, not the at-fault party's.
, for motor vehicles required to be registered in this state and, with respect to motor vehicle accidents, a limitation on the right to claim damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience.
Please note, that this law does not restrict compensation to just medical, death or pain, but also inconvenience!
"limititation on the right to claim damages" sounds like restricting compensation to me.
So, once again, in this mickey mouse state, we can and do sue for any reason under the sun (or rain, sleet, pothole ....)
Jim
HZ,
Not to drag this issue out, but anyone insured in Florida really needs to look at chapters 627-641 for the Florida No-Fault Laws.
627.731 Purpose.--The purpose of ss. 627.730-627.7405 is to provide for medical, surgical, funeral, and disability insurance benefits without regard to fault, and to require motor vehicle insurance securing such benefits
Through Personal Injury Protection coverage under your own policy, not the at-fault party's.
, for motor vehicles required to be registered in this state and, with respect to motor vehicle accidents, a limitation on the right to claim damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and inconvenience.
Please note, that this law does not restrict compensation to just medical, death or pain, but also inconvenience!
"limititation on the right to claim damages" sounds like restricting compensation to me.
So, once again, in this mickey mouse state, we can and do sue for any reason under the sun (or rain, sleet, pothole ....)
Jim
http://www.toddcopeland.com/nofault.asp
of a Florida attorney who describes the No-Fault law as establishing a limited exemption from liability for injuries caused by an auto accident. If you are exempt from liability, you cannot be sued. (Well, technically you can but the other party has no cause of action and the suit will be dismissed for that reason.)
In the meantime, let's all hope none of us needs to file any claims for anything happening in our Z's.
They're just around the corner.
08-08-2002, 04:02 AM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
HZ,
Unfortunately in my younger days, I was the recipient of such lawsuit, and I can tell you from experience, the lawyers here in FL, know exactly what 'no fault' means. Yes, it does limit the insurance companies liability, but not the individual's. If I had gone to trial and lost, I would have been out at least 6 figures, as it was, it cost me my business, and my first home. So while the laws look pretty in writing, they don't mean squat in real life. Bottom line, is there is no 'limit' to individual exposure for lawsuits in Florida, and probably most other states.
Jim
Unfortunately in my younger days, I was the recipient of such lawsuit, and I can tell you from experience, the lawyers here in FL, know exactly what 'no fault' means. Yes, it does limit the insurance companies liability, but not the individual's. If I had gone to trial and lost, I would have been out at least 6 figures, as it was, it cost me my business, and my first home. So while the laws look pretty in writing, they don't mean squat in real life. Bottom line, is there is no 'limit' to individual exposure for lawsuits in Florida, and probably most other states.
Jim