+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Interesting insurance company tactic (/showthread.php?tid=202348)
Pages:
1
2
Interesting insurance company tactic - Mr645 - 03-01-2017
Last year a work van for a tile company took out a sign at a shopping center I own. Seems the driver was speeding to get back to the shop before anyone had noticed he borrowed the van to see some friends.
Anyway, the damage was $24k for the sign, some lighting, landscaping and such. The van had only $10k
of liability insurance on it, which seems crazy for a company owned van, but that's what it is. Geico gets the bill, accepts responsibility on behalf of their client and sends a check for $10k BUT..... The back of the check has 3 paragraphs of small text part of which states that by accepting this settlement I agree not to pursue them or their client for any further action or responsibility for damage.
WAIT, just because the insurance company has a $10k limit does not mean the responsible party is off the hook for damage the caused. Of course I am going to go after the remaining balance. So the check goes back to Geico and were going to proceed with a law suite against the tile company for the full amount of the damage.
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - Robert M - 03-01-2017
Mr645,
This is nothing new. Quite common actually. And, I'm glad you didn't fall for it. Unfortunately, many people do and don' realize they're screwing themselves in the process. That's why people need to read _everything_ they receive from an insurance company. If Geico's client only has a $10K limit for liability, they may have other insurance on the same policy to supplement it, i.e. uninsured/underinsured. Are you going after the driver, too?
Robert
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - GuyGene - 03-01-2017
This is why all these lawyers are advertising. We need lawyers helping with these things.
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - Mr645 - 03-01-2017
It's been explained to me that the van is actually owned by the owner of the tile company and the driver, a relative, took it without permission. Geico will end up paying the 10K, the Tile companies insurance is not likely to pay out anything since the van as not being used on company business. We will end up suing the Tile company and owner of the van which will result in a lien against the company and against he owners home. Legal fees will also be greater then the $14k they have to pay and eventually we'll receive the balance when they go to sell the home in the future, or get a judgement to freeze the Tile company assets and bank accounts to pay off the debt. Lawyer is trying to determine assets of the company as it seems to be a small company, 3 employees, 1 van, operating out of a self storage unit.
So employee borrowing the company van may end up costing the owner his house and/or bankrupting the company
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - gabester - 03-01-2017
Mr645 wrote:
So (nepotistic) employee borrowing the company van may end up costing the owner his house and/or bankrupting the company
One wonders how much this business owner was saving monthly by having such a small liability coverage level... because it's that more than anything else that is costing so much now.
It probably wasn't worth it.
Mr645 wrote:
...at a shopping center I own.
Congratulations?
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - C(-)ris - 03-01-2017
10k is the bare minimum in some states. It is only $5k in California. $5k won't even cover the cost to replace a guard rail that MNdot bills for if you hit one.
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - Bill in NC - 03-01-2017
The below is why I added an umbrella liability policy on top of my homeowner/auto insurance (of course I had to raise those limits) when my kids started driving.
Mr645 wrote:
We will end up suing the Tile company and owner of the van which will result in a lien against the company and against he owners home. Legal fees will also be greater then the $14k they have to pay and eventually we'll receive the balance when they go to sell the home in the future, or get a judgement to freeze the Tile company assets and bank accounts to pay off the debt. Lawyer is trying to determine assets of the company as it seems to be a small company, 3 employees, 1 van, operating out of a self storage unit.
So employee borrowing the company van may end up costing the owner his house and/or bankrupting the company
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - Filliam H. Muffman - 03-01-2017
Mr645 wrote:
It's been explained to me that the van is actually owned by the owner of the tile company and the driver, a relative, took it without permission. Geico will end up paying the 10K, the Tile companies insurance is not likely to pay out anything since the van as not being used on company business. We will end up suing the Tile company and owner of the van which will result in a lien against the company and against he owners home. Legal fees will also be greater then the $14k they have to pay and eventually we'll receive the balance when they go to sell the home in the future, or get a judgement to freeze the Tile company assets and bank accounts to pay off the debt. Lawyer is trying to determine assets of the company as it seems to be a small company, 3 employees, 1 van, operating out of a self storage unit.
So employee borrowing the company van may end up costing the owner his house and/or bankrupting the company
I hope you have an experienced attorney that will jump on this ASAP. A friend got taken advantage by an acquaintance and the guy dragged his feet while the defendant jettisoned a bunch of assets and hid cash.
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - PeterW - 03-01-2017
Mr645 wrote:
It's been explained to me that the van is actually owned by the owner of the tile company and the driver, a relative, took it without permission. Geico will end up paying the 10K, the Tile companies insurance is not likely to pay out anything since the van as not being used on company business. We will end up suing the Tile company and owner of the van which will result in a lien against the company and against he owners home. Legal fees will also be greater then the $14k they have to pay and eventually we'll receive the balance when they go to sell the home in the future, or get a judgement to freeze the Tile company assets and bank accounts to pay off the debt. Lawyer is trying to determine assets of the company as it seems to be a small company, 3 employees, 1 van, operating out of a self storage unit.
So employee borrowing the company van may end up costing the owner his house and/or bankrupting the company
Or you could end up with a judgement against the worthless employee/relative who will turn out to be judgement-proof.
Re: Interesting insurance company tactic - JoeH - 03-02-2017
PeterW wrote:
[quote=Mr645]
It's been explained to me that the van is actually owned by the owner of the tile company and the driver, a relative, took it without permission. Geico will end up paying the 10K, the Tile companies insurance is not likely to pay out anything since the van as not being used on company business. We will end up suing the Tile company and owner of the van which will result in a lien against the company and against he owners home. Legal fees will also be greater then the $14k they have to pay and eventually we'll receive the balance when they go to sell the home in the future, or get a judgement to freeze the Tile company assets and bank accounts to pay off the debt. Lawyer is trying to determine assets of the company as it seems to be a small company, 3 employees, 1 van, operating out of a self storage unit.
So employee borrowing the company van may end up costing the owner his house and/or bankrupting the company
Or you could end up with a judgement against the worthless employee/relative who will turn out to be judgement-proof.
That last is unlikely in most jurisdictions, the judgement would be against the owner of the vehicle, i.e. the tile business. The business may be able to recover from the relative, but that usually is not the claimants responsibility.