Question about umbrella insurance

[Sunset]

Turns out most folks don't have enough umbrella insurance.

Geico ordered to pay 5.2M to a woman that got HPV in the car of a Geico customer.

She sued, since inside the car is insured, and she WON in arbitration , and like many losers in arbitration Geico took it to court, and was denied.

It doesn't say, but I bet the car owner didn't have $5.2Million in liability coverage..

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/geico-orde...170300926.html

[ncbill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset Turns out most folks don't have enough umbrella insurance. Geico ordered to pay 5.2M to a woman that got HPV in the car of a Geico customer. She sued, since inside the car is insured, and she WON in arbitration , and like many losers in arbitration Geico took it to court, and was denied. It doesn't say, but I bet the car owner didn't have $5.2Million in liability coverage.. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/geico-orde...170300926.html

GEICO wasn't a party to the arbitration proceeding...that $5.2 Million award is against him personally.

There's now a separate legal proceeding to determine if the nature of the claim is even eligible for coverage under his policy.

Even if covered it would be subject to policy limits and given his conduct I bet those are at the state minimum.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncbill GEICO wasn't a party to the arbitration proceeding...that $5.2 Million award is against him personally. There's now a separate legal proceeding to determine if the nature of the claim is even eligible for coverage under his policy. Even if covered it would be subject to policy limits and given his conduct I bet those are at the state minimum.

Reading the Kansas news vs the yahoo news does put a different flavor on the sequence of events.

If this stands, wow.... think of all the auto action that is suddenly going to be excluded in policies !

Neither story talks about the liability limit the car owner had, nor umbrella insurance, but at 5.2 Million dollars, which seems pretty firm now... Lots of people don't have that kind of coverage.

I do find that award excessive for a probably curable STD caught while engaged in consensual sex (but not knowing the risk, although isn't it always a risk with a new contact), what would have been paid out for a death

[ncbill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset Reading the Kansas news vs the yahoo news does put a different flavor on the sequence of events. If this stands, wow.... think of all the auto action that is suddenly going to be excluded in policies ! Neither story talks about the liability limit the car owner had, nor umbrella insurance, but at 5.2 Million dollars, which seems pretty firm now... Lots of people don't have that kind of coverage. I do find that award excessive for a probably curable STD caught while engaged in consensual sex (but not knowing the risk, although isn't it always a risk with a new contact), what would have been paid out for a death

Assuming the amount stands, he'd just file BK to discharge whatever excess judgment remains.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncbill Assuming the amount stands, he'd just file BK to discharge whatever excess judgment remains.

It will strip away whatever assets are not protected, and possibly garnish future wages if working.

Maybe he has a huge umbrella and this entire thing was a clever plot by him and his girlfriend

[ncbill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset It will strip away whatever assets are not protected, and possibly garnish future wages if working. Maybe he has a huge umbrella and this entire thing was a clever plot by him and his girlfriend

Sure, but BK ends (suspends) wage garnishment immediately on filing (BK lawyers advertise that heavily) & with any excess judgment discharged during the BK there's no judgment left afterwards which would warrant wage garnishment.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset Turns out most folks don't have enough umbrella insurance. Geico ordered to pay 5.2M to a woman that got HPV in the car of a Geico customer. She sued, since inside the car is insured, and she WON in arbitration , and like many losers in arbitration Geico took it to court, and was denied. It doesn't say, but I bet the car owner didn't have $5.2Million in liability coverage.. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/geico-orde...170300926.html

Does this mean now if someone gets HPV in the bedroom, collecting on the partner's homeowners insurance is fair game?

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer Does this mean now if someone gets HPV in the bedroom, collecting on the partner's homeowners insurance is fair game?

I'm thinking if I could pin getting Covid on someone, I've found a payday

[JoeWras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset I'm thinking if I could pin getting Covid on someone, I've found a payday

Don't joke too much about it.

Over the last two years I've had to sign a lot of COVID waivers when working in volunteer groups. It's for that exact reason, these organizations don't want a claim that "pins covid on them."

[COcheesehead]

I learned something about umbrella insurance recently. We reported a crime, the story made the local news. We are now witnesses for the local DA. The perpetrator has taken to social media saying they are going to serve us with a libel and slander suit because they are innocent and have been slandered as a result of the story. I consulted a lawyer and he said the suit would be frivolous because what we said is fact, but here is the interesting part. Libel and slander are excluded from my umbrella policy, but the insurance company has to defend me based on the policy, though they may not indemnify me. Meaning if the suit goes through, highly unlikely and more of a threat from the defendant, the umbrella will defend, though likely not fund, if a judgement happens. Interesting.

[Dash man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead I learned something about umbrella insurance recently. We reported a crime, the story made the local news. We are now witnesses for the local DA. The perpetrator has taken to social media saying they are going to serve us with a libel and slander suit because they are innocent and have been slandered as a result of the story. I consulted a lawyer and he said the suit would be frivolous because what we said is fact, but here is the interesting part. Libel and slander are excluded from my umbrella policy, but the insurance company has to defend me based on the policy, though they may not indemnify me. Meaning if the suit goes through, highly unlikely and more of a threat from the defendant, the umbrella will defend, though likely not fund, if a judgement happens. Interesting.

Interesting. Do you mind saying which company the policy is with?
I think I’ll be digging through my policy this weekend.

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dash man Interesting. Do you mind saying which company the policy is with? I think I’ll be digging through my policy this weekend.

Due to it being an active case, I am not going to add anymore, I hope you’ll understand, but it’s a carrier we all have heard of.

[Dash man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead Due to it being an active case, I am not going to add anymore, I hope you’ll understand, but it’s a carrier we all have heard of.

I understand.
I just looked through my USAA policy, but not with a fine tooth comb. Didn’t see any specific exclusion like this, but need to read more closely. A project for the weekend.

[luckydude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead I learned something about umbrella insurance recently. We reported a crime, the story made the local news. We are now witnesses for the local DA. The perpetrator has taken to social media saying they are going to serve us with a libel and slander suit because they are innocent and have been slandered as a result of the story. I consulted a lawyer and he said the suit would be frivolous because what we said is fact, but here is the interesting part. Libel and slander are excluded from my umbrella policy, but the insurance company has to defend me based on the policy, though they may not indemnify me. Meaning if the suit goes through, highly unlikely and more of a threat from the defendant, the umbrella will defend, though likely not fund, if a judgement happens. Interesting.

Thanks for sharing. This seems like a blatant attempt to intimidate a witness.

It's another sad example how easily frivolous lawsuits can be filed against anyone under any pretext nowadays and underscores the importance of having an umbrella policy (even if it only covers the cost of defense in this case).

Best of luck to you on fighting this.

[COcheesehead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckydude Thanks for sharing. This seems like a blatant attempt to intimidate a witness. It's another sad example how easily frivolous lawsuits can be filed against anyone under any pretext nowadays and underscores the importance of having an umbrella policy (even if it only covers the cost of defense in this case). Best of luck to you on fighting this.

The DA told me it is not uncommon for defendants to file defamation suits against a witness because criminal actions and civil actions are separate and the evidence is treated differently.

[ExFlyBoy5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dash man I understand. I just looked through my USAA policy, but not with a fine tooth comb. Didn’t see any specific exclusion like this, but need to read more closely. A project for the weekend.

Our USAA policy does cover libel and slander. Obviously, this may be different from state to state.

[Dash man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExFlyBoy5 Our USAA policy does cover libel and slander. Obviously, this may be different from state to state.

I’m pretty sure ours does too after reading through it. Sometimes I’m just leery of the legalese that can be confusing.

[FlaMariner]

[QUOTE=bobandsherry;2700150] Attorney said that having umbrella attracts more frivolous lawsuits

Curious....How would anyone know I had umbrella insurance?

[JoeWras]

I'm finding this recent news very disturbing. Is this "legal insurance" and not real insurance? If all they are doing is defending the claimant, but not paying for a judgement, what incentive does the insurance have to present a strong defense?

My umbrella specifically covers libel and slander. But now I'm not sure what "cover" means anymore...

[Car-Guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by COcheesehead Libel and slander are excluded from my umbrella policy, but the insurance company has to defend me based on the policy, though they may not indemnify me. Meaning if the suit goes through, highly unlikely and more of a threat from the defendant, the umbrella will defend, though likely not fund, if a judgement happens. Interesting.

Good thing folks don't post any libelous or slanderous things on the Internet...