now browsing by category
Do you have adequate uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage? This coverage should be part of your motor vehicle insurance policy (sometimes referred to as UM or UIM/UDM coverage). It applies when you or a family member are hurt or killed by another motor vehicle and the person causing the incident either has no insurance or inadequate insurance. It generally would apply whether you are a driver, a passenger in a car, on a bicycle, or even walking as a pedestrian. UM coverage through your own automobile carrier would step in to pay for your damages if you cannot recover from the person at fault.
What amounts should you purchase? Generally you should purchase UM coverage in at least the same amounts as your liability coverage. Liability coverage applies if you or a family member are at fault and cause harm or damages to others. In the past in Ohio insurance companies were required to offer UM coverage in the same amounts as your liability coverage. And if you rejected it or chose lesser amounts, then the rejection or reduction had to be in writing. But Ohio law has changed and now many people are not aware of whether they have UM coverage or not.
Many drivers in Ohio do not carry adequate insurance, and of course some have none at all even though Ohio law requires that all drivers have coverage. It has been reported that in rural areas, for example, 15-20 percent of drivers have no insurance and many others have no more than Ohio’s minimum liability coverage, which is now $25,000/$50,000.
How could this affect you? To illustrate, assume you have purchased coverage of $50,000/$100,000 for liability and the same for UM coverage, and you are seriously hurt by a motorist who only has Ohio’s minimum coverage. If you have over $50,000 in medical bills , and have lost wages and other expenses, you may be out of luck trying to get full compensation for your injuries. The most you can obtain from the at fault person’s insurance is $25,000. If you make an underinsured motorist claim to your insurance company, the most your are likely to get is another $25,000 ($50,000 less $25,000, because generally you cannot “stack” your UM coverage on top of the other person’s coverage). The person at fault may not have sufficient assets to cover the damages and may declare bankruptcy.
You also have to keep in mind that even if your health insurance company paid your medical bills they will expect to be paid back from any recovery you get. This is called “subrogation.” Once your health insurer is paid back, this may leave you with not even enough to cover your expenses and lost wages from the collision, such as under the example above.
Rolling Stones frontman, Mick Jagger, was diagnosed with acute traumatic stress disorder in the wake of long time companion L’Wren Scott’s death. When he became depressed after Ms. Scott hung herself, he was told by a doctor not to perform for one month. The Stones were subsequently forced to postpone the Australia and New Zealand part of their world tour. The Rolling Stones had taken out a £15million policy to cover the costs if they were forced to cancel dates on their tour, as they were here. Yet now the underwriters claim that because Miss Scott committed suicide, they do not have to pay out. The insurers argue that Miss Scott’s death was not “sudden and unforeseen” or “beyond her control,” and the Stones do not qualify for a payout.
Recently the insurers filed a lawsuit in New York’s Federal Court, and subpoenaed the executor of Scott’s will, the New York City medical examiner, and Ms. Scott’s assistant, in an attempt to gain access to any emails or messages about any attempts at or references to self harm by Miss Scott, in addition to information about her general mental health. Sounds like this could be an ugly battle. But perhaps it will lead to a good blues song.
Thanks to the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog for pointing this out.
Are you covered by your homeowner’s insurance if you punch your wife’s lover at Blossom Music Center after having a few beers? The Ninth District Court of Appeals recently allowed the claim against Allstate to continue, finding that granting summary judgment to Allstate was error where the policy covered bodily injuries from all accidents involving insured, and there was an issue of fact whether homeowner intended to injure plaintiff.