UIM carrier in personal injury case

[Redemptionman]

Like any auto personal injury claim, if the liability carrier won't settle for the amount you want, you file suit against the at-fault driver.

Liability carrier wants to dump limits, UIM carrier will not respond. I believe my post was confusing or maybe not clear or you misunderstood it.

 

[adjusterjack]

Looking back over the post, I see that I did misunderstand it and I should have gone back over the thread to refresh my memory.

Now I see that your question has already been answered.

You file suit against the driver and get a verdict for the full amount of your claim or you file a bad faith lawsuit against the UIM carrier.

Frankly, you'd have a better result suing the driver because a lawyer will do it on a contingency.

You likely will have to pay for a lawsuit against your UIM carrier because bad faith is very costly and difficult to prove.

PS. Fairness and justice have nothing to do with any of this, it's the contract that counts, and that's already been explained.

 

[Redemptionman]

Looking back over the post, I see that I did misunderstand it and I should have gone back over the thread to refresh my memory.

Now I see that your question has already been answered.

You file suit against the driver and get a verdict for the full amount of your claim or you file a bad faith lawsuit against the UIM carrier.

Frankly, you'd have a better result suing the driver because a lawyer will do it on a contingency.

You likely will have to pay for a lawsuit against your UIM carrier because bad faith is very costly and difficult to prove.

PS. Fairness and justice have nothing to do with any of this, it's the contract that counts, and that's already been explained.

Well taking emotion out of it then, when the defendant's liability carrier wants to tender their limits then what stops them? I mean isn't the main defendants insurance carrier allowed to tender their liability limits to the accident victim and keep the good ole UIM carrier on the hook for their UIM limits. or does the UIM carrier not have to respond? basically does the plaintiff's UIM carrier have to approve the action of the settlement limits being tendered? what at that point keeps the plaintiff from settling with the liability carrier/defendant direct and preserving their rights for the UIM coverage.

Basically, under this scenario everyone should pay for state minimum coverage because anything more is an unenforceable contract that requires a judgement. LOL

It is crap.

 

[adjusterjack]

what at that point keeps the plaintiff from settling with the liability carrier/defendant direct and preserving their rights for the UIM coverage.

That doesn't happen.

A first party company that tenders limits to the claimant without getting a signed release breaches it's contractual duty to its insured by leaving its insured vulnerable to a lawsuit for which he would have to pay for his own defense.

And if the claimant signed a release he would be done and he would have relieved his own UIM carrier of any further obligation.

Basically, under this scenario everyone should pay for state minimum coverage because anything more is an unenforceable contract that requires a judgement. LOL

That's the wrong way to look at it. The higher your UIM and UM limits are, the more inclined an attorney is to take the case on a contingency.

If everybody carried just minimum limits nobody would ever collect under UIM because UIM is excess over the at-fault driver's liability limit. In other words, if he has $25K per person BI and you have $25K UIM per person, that doesn't get added to the other driver's limit. You would need $50K UIM to get $25K from your UIM. $100K to get $75K and so on. Read the coverage part and you'll see.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that your UIM carrier's behavior is reprehensible but it is entitled to require proof of your claim. The ultimate proof is a judgment.

So tell me.

What is the other driver's per person BI limit and what is your UIM per person limit?

And how much are your damages (include pain and suffering).

 

[Redemptionman]

That doesn't happen.

A first party company that tenders limits to the claimant without getting a signed release breaches it's contractual duty to its insured by leaving its insured vulnerable to a lawsuit for which he would have to pay for his own defense.

And if the claimant signed a release he would be done and he would have relieved his own UIM carrier of any further obligation.

Generally yes, but this is a multiple defendant case and deals with an under-insured motorist. This is a third party liability state min. limits tender and as long as the release grants a covenant not to enforce excess judgment (since it would not be worthwhile) the plaintiff would preserve his or her right to the remaining named UIM defendants purse strings. The UIM carrier would be unmasked and not allowed to hide behind the bushes if you will.

That's the wrong way to look at it. The higher your UIM and UM limits are, the more inclined an attorney is to take the case on a contingency.

If everybody carried just minimum limits nobody would ever collect under UIM because UIM is excess over the at-fault driver's liability limit. In other words, if he has $25K per person BI and you have $25K UIM per person, that doesn't get added to the other driver's limit. You would need $50K UIM to get $25K from your UIM. $100K to get $75K and so on. Read the coverage part and you'll see.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that your UIM carrier's behavior is reprehensible but it is entitled to require proof of your claim. The ultimate proof is a judgment.

So tell me.

What is the other driver's per person BI limit and what is your UIM per person limit?

And how much are your damages (include pain and suffering).

there is no offsets being taken, in your example the UIM carrier would be inclined to front the liability limits of the defendants insurance thus preserving their subrogation rights. In a tort immune defendant this usually doesn't happen. Basically, in this example I was wanting to know if she should settle with the third party liability carrier thus leaving only the UIM carrier or would it be better to seek this excess judgment you discuss against the defendant and not let the third party liability carrier out?

That is the question.

 

[adjusterjack]

Basically, in this example I was wanting to know if she should settle with the third party liability carrier thus leaving only the UIM carrier or would it be better to seek this excess judgment you discuss against the defendant and not let the third party liability carrier out?

That's a question that should be put to a local attorney who has experience with UIM claims.

All I can do (and have done) is point you to the UIM contract which entitles the UIM carrier to dispute the amount of the claim regardless of any other considerations.

 

[Redemptionman]

UIM carrier sent out letter to settle for UIM limits, Great.

I still believe that the first party carrier committed bad faith and should be punished. Also an ERISA lien has been initiated from the healthcare provided for the lady involved in this situation. While it in itself is not a huge part of the settlement. It is still significant portion of the 3rd party settlement since the person who hit her is a min. state insurance driver. Anyone have any knowledge of ERISA and how to get them discharged without payment? It is such a low amount that I think they wouldn't file a federal ERISA case as her but you never know. I believe that ERISA liens have to have a 3rd party settlement to go after which limits them to that. There has to be ways out of ERISA liens.

 

[adjusterjack]

UIM carrier sent out letter to settle for UIM limits, Great.

Wonderful.

No need to keep this thread open any longer.

Locked.