there was an accident and I might be sued for negligence - somebody else was driving a car I own.and your insurance company hires a lawyer to represent you?
Had not considered that angle. Thanksyour Insurance Company wants to settle and you wish to continue litigation . . . )
This isn't really correct. You can be sued anytime, anywhere by any number of nut jobs. It is more accurate to say that you can't be sued successfully unless the driver killed or permanently injured someone or caused them to suffer economic loss that they were not compensated for by way of a collateral insurance policy.you cant be sued for negligence unless the driver killed or permanently injured someone. 4tees is right though your insurance co will cover the bill for your lawyer. If you are unsure about your liability coverage on your car its most likely 1 or 2 million and that doesn't include the lawyer.
It is a possibility but you should know that the size of any potential settlement is not likely to effect your rates. Whether the driver in question was at fault for the accident and to what extent they were at fault, in they eyes of the insurer, will be determined by Ontario's fault determination rules. Any settlement in advance of trial is going to include a provision that there is no admission of liability so you would have to think really hard about why you would want to resist an insurance company settling a claim when the settlement is going to have virtually no impact on you.Had not considered that angle. Thanks
you can't be sued successfully unless the driver killed or permanently injured someone or caused them to suffer economic loss that they were not compensated for by way of a collateral insurance policy.
This is why we have insurance. They cover the cost of defending you regardless of whether the action has merit or not.
Not my concern at all. If I need to save money I've lived long periods with no car (am doing so right now), my concern was being held liable for some large sum over and above the insurance coverage ($2 million).the size of any potential settlement is not likely to effect your rates.
This is simply not accurate. There is no "reputational impact" of a settlement. The insured person does not "accept blame" if there is a settlement. The insurance company pays money out and the person claiming the money signs a release that specifically states that there is no acknowledgement of liability. The insured person doesn't sign anything and there is nothing to suggest that they, in any fashion, "accepted blame" for the accident. The notion that insurance companies settle cases based strictly on evaluating the cheapest way to extract themselves from the claim is not a news flash; it is self evident to anyone with half a brain. This makes the "reputational impact" of a settlement even more remoteThe result to you is the reputational impact of the insurer deciding that you will accept blame and, potentially, a lifetime (or years, at lest) of higher premiums because you have now been held responsible for a significant claim.
Anyone that cannot see the significant divergence of interests between these positions is not paying close attention.
Oh, you mean the car that you never gave them permission to drive and they must have taken the keys when you weren't looking!there was an accident and I might be sued for negligence - somebody else was driving a car I own.
where did you read in my posts I never gave them permission or they took the keys while I wasn't looking? I hope I didn't imply any of this.Oh, you mean the car that you never gave them permission to drive and they must have taken the keys when you weren't looking!