Insurance firms have traditionally refused to reveal the policy maximum. An insurance company benefits from keeping the policy limit close to the vest because it forces the third-party claimant to negotiate in the dark and make a demand without knowing what compensation is potentially attainable. However, it seems pointless to keep this material confidential because it will be revealed in formal discovery once litigation commences.
Insurance adjusters have a different mindset than personal injury lawyers. Insurance adjusters frequently prioritize the insurer’s financial interests over the policyholder’s best interests. Insurance firms, on the other hand, are required by law to put their customers first.
The policyholder’s interest must take precedence over its own, and the claim must be settled as soon as possible.
Should you disclose policy limits?
When requested, you should disclose the limitations of your insurance coverage for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it has the potential to avoid the entire legal process, saving you both time and money. Similarly, because your insurance policy limit is an important factor in determining the value of a personal injury lawsuit, reporting it enables constructive settlement discussions. Furthermore, it may deter the victim from requesting more than the policy maximum.
When asked for the insurance limitations, our recommendation to clients at Petro Accident and Injury Attorneys is to release them. It’s far easier to hand over the information now than to wait until you’re sued to do so. After all, why wouldn’t you reveal your policy limit if it aids in the resolution of the matter? Regardless of what your insurance adjuster says, it is usually in your best interest as the policyholder to release the information. However, we recommend that you hire an experienced personal injury attorney to represent you and guide you through the claims process.
Call Mark Petro of Petro Accident and Injury Attorneys
Mark Petro has established a reputation for getting personal injury lawsuits handled in a way that optimizes the amount of recovery so that you get what you deserve as quickly as possible. For a free consultation about your situation, contact Mark Petro of Petro Accident and Injury Attorneys. Let us go to war for you!
Should I disclose my policy limits after an accident?
Consider the fact that most California drivers carry the bare minimum of insurance. In over half of all accidents, the minimum limits are barely adequate. That is why it is critical to determine whether the at-fault motorist has those low limits as soon as possible. A thoughtful accident victim will examine 1) if his Underinsured Motorist limits will apply; and 2) whether medical treatment and property damage repair should be minimized as quickly as possible. In California, it is common procedure for an insurer to issue a written request to its insured requesting permission to reveal limits information.
Insureds grant consent on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not to provide such permission is a hot issue and question that we frequently see on social media sites. My advise is always the same: reveal the details. It could help you avoid a lawsuit.
Insurers have historically approached the problem from the wrong direction. The insurers say that if a claimant learns that the at-fault driver’s policy limitations are high, he will unnecessarily undergo costly and unnecessary medical treatment in order to maximize his payment. Back in the 1980s, the battle over policy limit disclosure was highly disputed and litigated, with a final decision that practically everyone (almost) follows. Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Insurance Co., 230 Cal.App.3d 59 (1991).
Griffith, in my opinion, unilaterally brokered a feasible solution based on faulty reasoning, as will be explained more clearly below. Here’s a quick rundown of the Griffith case. An injured victim is not entitled to the adverse driver’s insurance information prior to filing a lawsuitunless the adverse driver chooses to release the information. The insurer is required to provide the information when a lawsuit is filed, and approval from the insured is not required. The court reasoned that the insured’s right to privacy exceeded the victim’s right to know until the lawsuit was filed:
“Similarly, once a lawsuit has been filed, demonstrating that a serious claim is being asserted against the insured, courts have recognized that an adverse party has a ” ‘discoverable interest’ in liability insurance that arises with the’very pendency’ of the action against the assured; that therefore, the existence and policy limits of the liability insurance are relevant to the subject matter involved in the personal injury action….” (Laddon v. Superior Court, supra, 167 Cal.App.2d 391, 334 P.2d 638; Pettie v. Superior Court, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d at p. 683, 3 Cal.Rptr. 267, emphasis added.) The courts have recognized that disclosing the material will aid in the resolution of the ongoing dispute. (Pettie v. Superior Court, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d at p. 689, 3 Cal.Rptr. 267; Pettie v. Superior Court, supra, 178 Cal.App.2d at p. 689, 3 Cal.Rptr. 267.) This right to know, on the other hand, develops during the pendency of the case.” (See Griffith, pp. 6970.)
I would argue that the “very pendency” of a legitimate claim should be the trigger, especially in a place where “underinsured” motorists are rampant.
Ironically, State Farm is involved in the lawsuit deciding claimants’ absolute right to seek such information from the adverse insurer. Contrary to Griffith vs. State Farm, my recent experience with State Farm has shown that the business would not voluntarily provide policy limits information even after a lawsuit is filed!
In reality, an insurer’s refusal to voluntarily reveal policy limits information has no bearing on how we handle situations. If an insured refuses to allow its insurer to divulge policy limits, we send a letter to the insurer stating that if the insured does not cooperate, we will bring suit immediately, and the insurer is required by law (Griffith) to release the information with or without their cooperation. What’s more, guess what? They always reveal!
In the case of State Farm, I will seek a judicial ruling that its actions are illegal at the earliest opportunity! If you have any issues concerning the insurance limits of the negligent motorist, I recommend speaking with a competent personal injury attorney who will not take “no” for an answer!
What does disclose policy limits mean?
I was in a car accident, and I have a question. My insurance company has received a letter from the opposite side requesting my policy limits. Should I make them public?
Answer: The Insurance Privacy Act protects your policy limitations if you are involved in an automobile accident. That implies no one can get the policy limits unless you give them to them. As a result, your insurance provider is requesting that approval in order to comply with the law.
There is, however, one exception. Your insurance limitations are no longer privileged in litigation, or when you are sued. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, is entitled to those boundaries. The mere filing of a lawsuit following a car accident in which you are accused of negligence gives the other party access to this information.
So, how do you go about it? When the insurance company asks for authorization, I always tell my clients to grant it to them. It is easier for you to provide the information immediately rather than waiting to be sued. Why wouldn’t you release it if it aids in the resolution of the issue? They may sue you, obtain the information, and then settle, but you would then have a public record of the lawsuit. Regardless of what your adjuster says, it is in your best interest to release the information.
When you’re asked about the insurance limits, my advise is to reveal them.
Why do attorneys ask for policy limits?
A request for policy limit information is frequently made soon after an accident or “event” in which someone is injured, blames another, and claims compensation. The insurance carrier is usually contacted by an attorney or a public adjuster who requests policy limits.
What happens if medical bills exceed policy limits?
A client’s medical bills may, in some cases, surpass the policy limits. So, what do you do now?
In general, there are two possible paths to take. First, if you have health insurance, it will cover the majority of your medical bills. Regrettably, you will almost always be required to reimburse your health insurance carrier for the amounts it has paid. When medical bills exceed the policy limits, we will often negotiate the amount you must pay back to the insurance company to reduce the amount you must pay and put as much money back in your pocket as possible.
If you don’t have health insurance, those bills are almost certainly still owed to you. In that situation, we’ll deal with the medical providers directly. We can generally come up with a solution. Medical professionals are frequently aware in these situations, especially when the bills are significant, that people do not have the financial capacity to pay large healthcare expenses on their own. As a result, they understand that the best method to receive it is through a settlement. We’ll frequently be able to reach an agreement where the medical professionals accept cents on the dollar. Medical professionals understand that something is better than nothing, even if it isn’t much.
There are, of course, alternative approaches to this problem, but these solutions solve the majority of them.
How do you find out someone’s policy limits?
When the insurance company refuses to tell you what the other driver’s policy limits are, how do you find out?
- Inquire with the driver. The contact information for the negligent driver will be included in the police report.
Why are insurance policies discoverable?
The discoverability of insurance policies is governed by FRCP Rule 26 in federal lawsuits. âA party must provide to the other parties, without waiting for a discovery request, any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action, or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment, for inspection and copying as provided in Rule 34, any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action, for inspection and copying as provided in Rule 34, any insurance agreement under which Rule 26(a)(1)(A) of the FRCP (iv). Furthermore, Rule 26(e)(1)(A) requires a party to supplement its initial disclosures âin a timely manner if the party learns that the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect in some material respect, and the additional or corrective information has not been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.â
Defense costs degrade the limits of a waste insurance, and long and expensive litigation can eat up a lot of the possible coverage. When negotiating a settlement, such as when a limitations settlement claim is made, the number of limits remaining under a policy is often a critical element. So, does a party have an obligation (or can it be compelled) to provide an updated total of its remaining insurance coverage as a lawsuit progresses, or is the initial production of the policy/declarations sufficient under Rule 26?
On this issue, district courts have taken opposing views. For example, based on Rule 26’s fundamental objective, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered supplemental production of a waste policy’s remaining limits. In re Delmarine, Inc., 535 F. Supp. 2d 318; In re Delmarine, Inc., 535 F. Supp. 2d 318; In re Delmarine (E.D.N.Y. 2007).
Delmarine is an admiralty case involving personal injuries sustained by a passenger following a collision between two recreational motor boats. As a limitation of liability action was consolidated with the personal injury action, the case dragged on for a long time. In the case of the personal injury claims, a non-jury trial was held, with Driver A receiving 85% of the blame and Driver B receiving 15%. The passenger received $750,000 in damages for current injuries and pain and suffering, $500,000 in damages for future pain and suffering, and $23,422.10 in damages for past medical expenses. Damages-related concerns remained before the court, including whether Driver A and the owner of Vessel A may be compelled to submit updated information regarding the remaining limits of their own insurance policies after the trial.
Based on Rule 26’s fundamental objective, the court ordered the remaining limits of the wasting policies to be produced. The primary goal of mandatory insurance policy disclosure, according to the court, is to allow counsel to ârealistically appraise the case by determining whether an insurer will be able to satisfy an expected judgment or settlement agreement.â Delmarine, 535 F. Supp. 2d at 322 (citing Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Cunningham Lindsey Claims Mgmt., Inc., 2005 WL 1522783, at *3 (E.D. The court found that the parties had met their initial disclosure obligations by producing their insurance policies earlier in the litigation, but that âbecause the claimant is likely to need the requested information to decide whether to proceed against Delmarine,â the court ordered the remaining limits to be disclosed. Id. at 322; see also Suffolk Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 141, 142-43 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that reinsurance information is discoverable to allow counsel for both sides to make the same realistic appraisal of the case based in part on the advisory committee’s notes). The fact that the limitation of liability lawsuit had still to be tried, which would further deplete the insurance policies, was a major element in the court’s judgment.
District courts in other circuits, on the other hand, have held that a party fulfills its initial disclosure obligation by providing a copy of its policy, and that the party is not required to produce supplemental information or documents in connection with the remaining limits as the case progresses.
Magistrate Judge Pappas of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied a motion to compel that sought the production of remaining insurance policy limits before trial in Excelsior College v. Frye. 583, 586, 233 F.R.D. (S.D. Cal. 2006). The plaintiff claimed that Rule 26(a)(1)(D), which requires the required submission of insurance agreements, justified the production of remaining limits. (Rule 26(a)(1)(D) allowed for the mandatory production of insurance agreements for examination and copying in the version of the FRCP in force in 2006; it has been renumbered to Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) in the present edition without any major changes to the language.) The court determined that Rule 26(a)(1)(Dplain )’s meaning only required the revelation of an insurance policy that gives rise to a responsibility to defend or hold harmless, not the subsequent presentation of the remaining limits. Id. at 586 (saying that the plaintiff requested disclosure of “information on the remaining policy limits,” which is “obviously not required by the rule”). The defendant had already supplied the appropriate policy in accordance with Rule 26 and the court stated that “case law does not support an extension of the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1)(D) beyond its simple meaning.” Ibid., p. 587.
In Silver v. Bad Boy Enterprises, LLC, a motion to force production of the remaining limits of a waste insurance by defendants before trial was denied. *1 in 2013 WL 1187962 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 21, 2013). The plaintiffs claimed that under Georgia law and FRCP Rule 26(a)(1)(A), the defendants were required to augment the original disclosure of their insurance policy limits on a monthly basis (iv). The defendants had met the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) by submitting a copy of the pertinent policy, which included a declarations page displaying the policy limitations as of the date the policy was issued, according to the court. Id. The court also noted that the original production of the policy met the Georgia discovery statute’s requirements.
As the preceding cases show, trial courts have a lot of leeway when it comes to discovery decisions. Furthermore, there is a split between courts that interpret Rule 26 based on its plain meaning and those that interpret it based on its purported underlying purpose of accurately valuing parties’ actions. In any case, counselors should be aware of the conflicting interpretations until and until subsequent court rulings and/or FRCP amendments provide additional clarification on the subject.
How do policy limits affect settlement?
In most cases, insurance companies will not pay more than the policy limit. In other circumstances, however, the victim may be interested in looking into ways to suit outside the policy restrictions. If you want to sue for more than the policy limits, you should start by engaging a reputable and skilled personal injury attorney. After the personal injury lawyer has reviewed the policies, claims, and settlement offers for the damages caused by the accident, they will assist you in beginning this difficult path using a variety of methods. Among the possibilities are:
If the losses exceed the policy limitations, you have the option of suing the driver individually for additional damages that exceed the insurance limits. However, before pursuing this strategy, you should first evaluate whether the defendant has sufficient assets to cover the judgment settlement.
When an insurance company fails to settle a claim for damage that exceeds the policy limits, they may face a bad faith suit. If the lawsuit goes to trial, the jury may award a sum that is greater than the policy maximum, putting the company on the line to pay the full amount.
In rare situations, you may be injured in an accident in which more than one party is at blame, which means you may be entitled to compensation from multiple insurance policies. With the help of an expert attorney, it is also simple to establish additional viable possibilities and identify other people who may be at fault.
Some defendants, such as corporations, may have an umbrella insurance that allows you to recover damages in excess of the policy limits. When all previous plans have paid to the maximum, the policy kicks in. As a result, it’s a good idea to try to figure out what kind of coverage the at-fault motorist has.