Iam reveiwing my auto insurance policy and a question arises me. The insurance policy has a underinsured motorist insurance on it,when I have full coverage insurance and health insurance, plus medical insurance on the policy for me and passengers in my car/truck, what the H do I need underinsured motorist protection, If I have full coverage, I have already insured my car aginst whatever, any damage or if its totaled by any means, medical insurance is on the policy to cover injuries, so why am I paying so someone else doesnt have to carry insurance or alot less. I hate Florida insurance, they want to raise my homeowners again(They already doubled it, when I never had a claim) because of impending Hurricanes, No hurricanes for like 3 years now, what I want to know is if we pay more for hurricanes and dont get any do we get that money back and that end of the year then? It is crazy down here with insurance. They cancel peoples homeowners for stupid stuff like Trampolines, roof to old, too close to coast(lesss than 10 miles,State Farm), dog(No bite history needed), swimming pool slides,house too old(20 years, too old again Your friends at State Farm)), trees overhanging(threatened me, had to pay $600 to get these big oak tree branchs cut back overhanging the house by about 5 feet. I hate all insurance companies.
Auto insurance question?
- Thread starter Panzerman
- Start date
- Status
its to protect you against hit and run, also if you are hit by someone with no insurance and they run out of money it will protect you.
Uninsured motorist protection is required in many states. I know it is one of the minimum insurance requirements in NC.
Originally Posted By: Cutehumor
keep it bro, you know how many illegals are here with no car insurance.
And dirt bag citizen's with suspended licenses and deadbeat's on not paying insurance premiums. My state (NH) does not even require auto insurance.
keep it bro, you know how many illegals are here with no car insurance.
And dirt bag citizen's with suspended licenses and deadbeat's on not paying insurance premiums. My state (NH) does not even require auto insurance.
Last edited:
Thing is you have full insurance, so if it is hit and run, your car is covered, same as if a tree falls on it. Only thing I could see is if you were hit by a drunk and crippled and sued him and he didnt have enough insurance, your insurance would cover the lawsuit, but I cant see this happening.Iam sure the insurance companies would get together and figure a reasonable amount in your behalf. I think Ill call my agent and ask her, Iam sure she has a wonderful explanation, same as why we need no fault so bad down here in Florida even though they repealed it.
Kestas
Staff member
I was informed by a Florida insurance carrier that up to 50% of drivers in the Miami area don't have insurance.
In Michigan it's 10%.
Is Florida a no-fault state?
In Michigan it's 10%.
Is Florida a no-fault state?
I'd drop the un-insured motorist as long as your fully covered. Also, unless you drive with "others" in your car that don't have health insurance, I'd drop that too. Example, only my wife and I drive our cars and we have family health insurance. No need to pay extra.
It's possible your own insurance doesn't cover what other people do to you, only what you do to others.
As far as homeowners insurance goes, you're free to not have any. I like that an insurance company charges more for higher risk properties.
As far as homeowners insurance goes, you're free to not have any. I like that an insurance company charges more for higher risk properties.
That would only be liabilty. Ive been busy at work because I was on vacation last week, but Iam hoping to call the insurance agent and ask her. Florida did drop the no fault, but the hospitals are whining, because to many people dont have auto insurance down here and they have to go pick them up after they crash and then get stuck with the bill. With no fault, someone(you, with insurance) they can get some money. Thats why they send a abulance with a neck brace for a fender bender.
As far as Homeowners goes, You cant forego homeownwers if you have a mortgage, which Iam sure includes most and that would be foolish anyway since your home is your best anchored investment. Anyone that says they like insurance companies that charge more for high risk properties is bitter not to have that location or works for a insurance company. Who doesnt want to live on the beach? Iam 4 miles from the beach, Iam not what I say High Risk, but alot of gouging down here in Florida. The insurance companies are trying to rate the whole state as high risk and thats not the case.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
You own a car. YOU are insured. YOU are insured in a tow motor/fork lift ...or an airplane fuselage with the wings ripped off of it navigating down the highway.
YOU are covered. What of the uninsured, but licensed, motorist that may drive your car?
It's not just for the uninsured "other driver".
There are other oddities like having 4 drivers and 3 cars. All drivers can't be on the road ..so risk is reduced. Having 4 cars and 3 drivers. All cars can't be on the road at the same time ..less risk. 4 cars 4 drivers ..more risk.
YOU are covered. What of the uninsured, but licensed, motorist that may drive your car?
It's not just for the uninsured "other driver".
There are other oddities like having 4 drivers and 3 cars. All drivers can't be on the road ..so risk is reduced. Having 4 cars and 3 drivers. All cars can't be on the road at the same time ..less risk. 4 cars 4 drivers ..more risk.
Well. My wife and I are the only drivers, kids are 9 and 10, so it will be awhile and all relatives are 1000+ miles away. Noone drives the cars but us, and I have a company truck, so one vehicle sits 90% of the time.
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
As far as Homeowners goes, You cant forego homeownwers if you have a mortgage, which Iam sure includes most and that would be foolish anyway since your home is your best anchored investment. Anyone that says they like insurance companies that charge more for high risk properties is bitter not to have that location or works for a insurance company. Who doesnt want to live on the beach? Iam 4 miles from the beach, Iam not what I say High Risk, but alot of gouging down here in Florida. The insurance companies are trying to rate the whole state as high risk and thats not the case.
Huh?
4 miles from the beach in Florida is a lot more high risk than North Dakota. So you should pay more. Living in desirable locations costs more.
As far as Homeowners goes, You cant forego homeownwers if you have a mortgage, which Iam sure includes most and that would be foolish anyway since your home is your best anchored investment. Anyone that says they like insurance companies that charge more for high risk properties is bitter not to have that location or works for a insurance company. Who doesnt want to live on the beach? Iam 4 miles from the beach, Iam not what I say High Risk, but alot of gouging down here in Florida. The insurance companies are trying to rate the whole state as high risk and thats not the case.
Huh?
4 miles from the beach in Florida is a lot more high risk than North Dakota. So you should pay more. Living in desirable locations costs more.
It's all in the terms of the insurance; if you end up with a bumper stuck in your [censored] and the medical bill is hundreds of grand, the personal injury protection won't cover hardly any of the bill; that's where uninsured motorist will save you.
http://www.carinsurance.com/kb/content10990.aspx
Even if you have full coverage (ie collision and comprehensive), it will only protect you when YOU are at fault, so if an uninsured motorist destroys your car, you up a creek. That's why there is uninsured motorist property damage. (basic uninsured/underinsured motorist is for medical).
http://www.carinsurance.com/kb/content10990.aspx
Even if you have full coverage (ie collision and comprehensive), it will only protect you when YOU are at fault, so if an uninsured motorist destroys your car, you up a creek. That's why there is uninsured motorist property damage. (basic uninsured/underinsured motorist is for medical).
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Kestas
I was informed by a Florida insurance carrier that up to 50% of drivers in the Miami area don't have insurance.
In Michigan it's 10%.
Is Florida a no-fault state?
Like most of the 20-something states that have gone no-fault, Florida is actually a hybrid state. Although the scheme is somewhat complex, in concept, the no-fault coverage always acts as the first tier of coverage, then if, and only if, certain conditions are met, the injured person can pursue a fault-based claim. And no, there are no "double recoveries" here; any judgment obtained in a fault-based claim is subject to an off-set for the benefits already received via the no-fault policy.
Panzerman, minus the years I was back on active duty, I've worked around Florida insurance, mostly auto insurance, for fifteen years. All I can say is DO NOT cancel your UM/UIM coverage. If you find yourself badly injured, just statistically, it will probably be at the hands of a drastically underinsured or totally non-insured driver. You will use up your PIP (no fault) coverage very quickly (most Floridians have only a $10k PIP, which after an ambulance ride to the ER, will be exhausted at about the moment the ER doc wakes up the first specialist...). After your PIP is wiped out, unless you have very good health coverage AND a very generous disability policy, you will be in serious trouble.
Commentary: as a lawyer, I do find it mildly amusing how the same folks who habitually, viciously attack lawyers for pursuing claims for injured persons are the same ones who squawk the loudest about how "unfair" no-fault is because of how it prevents them from holding the at-fault party accountable (which is exactly what it does). Can't really have it both ways...
I was informed by a Florida insurance carrier that up to 50% of drivers in the Miami area don't have insurance.
In Michigan it's 10%.
Is Florida a no-fault state?
Like most of the 20-something states that have gone no-fault, Florida is actually a hybrid state. Although the scheme is somewhat complex, in concept, the no-fault coverage always acts as the first tier of coverage, then if, and only if, certain conditions are met, the injured person can pursue a fault-based claim. And no, there are no "double recoveries" here; any judgment obtained in a fault-based claim is subject to an off-set for the benefits already received via the no-fault policy.
Panzerman, minus the years I was back on active duty, I've worked around Florida insurance, mostly auto insurance, for fifteen years. All I can say is DO NOT cancel your UM/UIM coverage. If you find yourself badly injured, just statistically, it will probably be at the hands of a drastically underinsured or totally non-insured driver. You will use up your PIP (no fault) coverage very quickly (most Floridians have only a $10k PIP, which after an ambulance ride to the ER, will be exhausted at about the moment the ER doc wakes up the first specialist...). After your PIP is wiped out, unless you have very good health coverage AND a very generous disability policy, you will be in serious trouble.
Commentary: as a lawyer, I do find it mildly amusing how the same folks who habitually, viciously attack lawyers for pursuing claims for injured persons are the same ones who squawk the loudest about how "unfair" no-fault is because of how it prevents them from holding the at-fault party accountable (which is exactly what it does). Can't really have it both ways...
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Can't really have it both ways...
Well, no one really wants it both ways. Lawyers, much like our medical sector, are a cartel of a sort. Regardless of all efforts to contain the cost of legal services or medical services ..the costs keep climbing in a disproportionate rate of the cost of living. You can't really opt out. If medicare limits recovered costs ...procedures that were elective become routine ..insured people pay more. Net costs ..MORE. It's the same with legal services. More lawyers don't result in lower legal fees ..they result in more disability and workers comp claims and more injury recovery suits.
The bright side is that all of the socialized costs of either are paid NOW.
Can't really have it both ways...
Well, no one really wants it both ways. Lawyers, much like our medical sector, are a cartel of a sort. Regardless of all efforts to contain the cost of legal services or medical services ..the costs keep climbing in a disproportionate rate of the cost of living. You can't really opt out. If medicare limits recovered costs ...procedures that were elective become routine ..insured people pay more. Net costs ..MORE. It's the same with legal services. More lawyers don't result in lower legal fees ..they result in more disability and workers comp claims and more injury recovery suits.
The bright side is that all of the socialized costs of either are paid NOW.
Gary:
You're reading far more into my post than is there. My point is simply that lawyers who actually try to hold those who cause harm accountable, are harpooned for allegedly being greedy opportunists (sure, there are a few...).
And it's most often the ones who are the quickest to harpoon lawyers who also make the most noise about "personal responsibility" and "accountability".
Hey, if you hurt someone, you should pay for the harm you cause (responsibility, being accountable...). If you have insurance, it should pay fairly for the covered losses you cause. But no, instead, the insurers TALK ABOUT responsibility and accountability in TV ads, while routinely stonewalling claims, forcing people (or at least strongly motivating them) to hire lawyers, and then they have the gumption to squeal long and loud about being beset by greedy lawyers.
As I've told my friends for years, if insurance companies treated half the people with claims, halfway fairly, half of the time, the "greedy trial lawyers" would be doing real estate closings because there'd simply be no demand for their services.
You're reading far more into my post than is there. My point is simply that lawyers who actually try to hold those who cause harm accountable, are harpooned for allegedly being greedy opportunists (sure, there are a few...).
And it's most often the ones who are the quickest to harpoon lawyers who also make the most noise about "personal responsibility" and "accountability".
Hey, if you hurt someone, you should pay for the harm you cause (responsibility, being accountable...). If you have insurance, it should pay fairly for the covered losses you cause. But no, instead, the insurers TALK ABOUT responsibility and accountability in TV ads, while routinely stonewalling claims, forcing people (or at least strongly motivating them) to hire lawyers, and then they have the gumption to squeal long and loud about being beset by greedy lawyers.
As I've told my friends for years, if insurance companies treated half the people with claims, halfway fairly, half of the time, the "greedy trial lawyers" would be doing real estate closings because there'd simply be no demand for their services.
...but back on point, for most people, UM/UIM (goes by slightly different names in the different states) is without question the most valuable auto insurance coverage you can buy. In fact, it's probably second only to life insurance, in that for most Americans, their greatest risk exposure is out on the roads where every time they travel, they face a gauntlet of barely insured, or bare naked uninsured crazy drivers. Panzerman, don't do it!
- Status
Similar threads
