because you will come out with more money than you had when you went into the accident
The entire thread is in the context of promoting a good decision...having the coverage. If you have one post that dealt with an at fault, or partailly at fault host driver, fine. But what I said and what Neauxla said is absolutely correct...these guys that don't understand coverage issues can be mislead...stay on point or back out.
Insurers hate to write UM coverage despite there being laws on the books requiring all drivers to have liability insurance.
If it's the uninsured motorists fault, then...well, they're shite out of luck. They are responsible for their own health coverage. It's not up to you to insure others. Why should you buy coverage for person x for the fault of person y...you're getting double whammy'd. As selfish as that sounds
quote:I do not get involved with that, ever. Different people have different idea about "General Damages". I can't answer that. I can just tell them what pays for what, and when.
As a lawyer, would you recommend your clients coming to you for advice to carry UM coverage
quote:That really doesn't make much sense. Um is not going to help with their liability. med-pay could in the sense that it's fault free and gets rid of some, and many times, all of the bills. Just carry high liability limts.
carry UM coverage with respects to their liability of driving on the road also with passengers in their vehicles whether they have health insurance or not?
Um is not going to help with their liability.
quote:This really doesn't compute. Can you rephrase?
Rejecting UM coverage is a liability in and of itself, that's how I was meaning their liability of driving on the road with passengers and such.
This really doesn't compute. Can you rephrase?
If you are hit by another driver and you have a passenger in your car. Your passenger can collect from the liability insurer, your UM insurer, and their UM insurer. It is the only time where UM stacking is allowed.