# Minimum liability (15/30/25) costs me $50/mo



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

I was wondering how this compares to the ants out there.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Your minimum single BI limit is below the minimum PD limit in Louisiana?

_Tabarnak de saint ciboire!_


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Your minimum single BI limit is below the minimum PD limit in Louisiana?
> 
> _Tabarnak de saint ciboire!_


I don't know what your acronyms stand for, but this is what the agent told me I had to get.


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

He's pointing out that your bodily injury (BI) limit is only $15,000 while your property damage (PD) is $25,000.

If you ran someone over, you would only be covered up to $15,000. But if you hit someone's car you'd be covered up to $25,000.

If that's all the insurance you can afford, you probably shouldn't be driving at all.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

I was in court once waiting for a case to be called and I witnessed a 'motion ruling' by the judge.
The 'defendant' was involved in an auto accidet which it was determied to be at fault. One person was killed, another had severe injuries that cost hundreds of thousands and would cost that much more in the future.

He had a $50k personal liability policy.

The insurance lawyer was there to give the court a cashiers check for $50,000 - which was the limit of the liability. The judge would decide how the money was distributed. The defendants lawyer was arguing that it should go to the defendants defense costs. The judge ruled that the insurance company was out of the legal stuff, and that she'd take it under review when she got a motion request from the injured parties.

Point is ... 50k is nothing.
And, guess who's responsible for the balance?

The insurance company will pay out the pennies, and leave the rest ...


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> He's pointing out that your bodily injury (BI) limit is only $15,000 while your property damage (PD) is $25,000.
> 
> If you ran someone over, you would only be covered up to $15,000. But if you hit someone's car you'd be covered up to $25,000.
> 
> If that's all the insurance you can afford, you probably shouldn't be driving at all.


It's not a question of "affording"; it's a question of protection. If I am at fault for a larger amount than the insurance, I wouldn't have to worry because I wouldn't have much in non-exempt assets in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for the bankruptcy trustee to commandeer. As for the car itself, it has a retail value of $3250K, and a trade-in value of $675, LOL. If I wreck it, I won't be buying another car; I'll just let the ants do the driving for me.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

jeanocelot said:


> It's not a question of "affording"; it's a question of protection. If I am at fault for a larger amount than the insurance, I wouldn't have to worry because I wouldn't have much in non-exempt assets in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for the bankruptcy trustee to commandeer. As for the car itself, it has a retail value of $3250K, and a trade-in value of $675, LOL. If I wreck it, I won't be buying another car; I'll just let the ants do the driving for me.


So when you hit someone else they will be the loser since your insurance won't cover them


----------



## kcdrvr15 (Jan 10, 2017)

You do run the risk of meeting Fred H. or another person like him, Fred's wife and baby daughter were killed by a reckless driver with no insurance. The day the driver got out of jail, Fred was waiting, walked up to him right at the jail exit, shot him point blank in the head, dropped the gun and sat down to wait for the deputies. About a year later Fred was found not guilty by reason of temporary insanity due to the grief of loosing his family. Just saying, you don't want to meet Fred.

I carry full coverage commercial livery insurance thru Progressive, on a 2016 suv, and I'm covered well above the minimums, and it's about $200 a month. So I don't know what cheap liability would run.


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

NicFit said:


> So when you hit someone else they will be the loser since your insurance won't cover them


That's what uninsured motorist coverage is for.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

jeanocelot said:


> That's what uninsured motorist coverage is for.


And by doing that since you didn't pay your part the rest of our insurance rates go up to cover you being a cheapskate. Good job on increasing everyone else's rates &#128530;


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

NicFit said:


> And by doing that since you didn't pay your part the rest of our insurance rates go up to cover you being a cheapskate. Good job on increasing everyone else's rates &#128530;


Thank you for trying to shame me into devoting more of my finances than what THE LAW says.


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

jeanocelot said:


> Thank you for trying to shame me into devoting more of my finances than what THE LAW says.


This is a valid point. California's minimum is 15/30/5 and been that way for years (decades?). If the State has unreasonably low minimums, it's not your fault. At least you have the minimum insurance. Almost 1 in 6 California drivers have no insurance at all.


----------



## NicFit (Jan 18, 2020)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> This is a valid point. California's minimum is 15/30/5 and been that way for years (decades?). If the State has unreasonably low minimums, it's not your fault. At least you have the minimum insurance. Almost 1 in 6 California drivers have no insurance at all.


I think the minimums are a joke, unless your like the op who has an el cheapo car then it doesn't cover hardly anything and what happens when the op doesn't see the red light and smashes the car in front of him so hard it hits the car in front of it. Insurance only pays so much and once your minimums are gone these other people are victims of the op just barely following the law. I don't think the minimums have been raised since they made insurance mandatory. They should as the cost of cars have skyrocketed in the last 30 years, I think the minimums should be 100k but since people don't think about anything but themselves and their wallet people like me have to pay more to cover their stupidity

Yes, I have 100k coverage, not sure if I need it but I see lambos running around my area and I don't want to be on the short end if I hit one of those


----------



## Drivingforfun (Oct 1, 2020)

Those Limits aren't going to cover a damn thing... You get in an at fault accident and you'll be bankrupt before the end of year after being sued for all you own... No thanks 100/300/100 for me.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

What Original Poster is telling us is that he is essentially judgment-proof. The ony thing about which he might want to inform himself is if Louisiana will suspend your licence if there is an unsatisfied judgment. Some states will do that upon petition of the plaintiff's counsel. Many states will require an SR-22. Those things are expensive.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

NicFit said:


> Yes, I have 100k coverage, not sure if I need it


Me too ... in addition I have a $1m 'umbrella' policy .. which covers almost everything (including auto) for less than $200 a year.
Look into that -- a great deal.

It covers you even doing stupid things.

I asked the insurance agent, "If I hire a 6 year old to re-roof my house and he falls off the roof and breaks his neck and I covered?" 
She said "Yes, you're covered for even doing stupid stuff ..."


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> What Original Poster is telling us is that he is essentially judgment-proof. The ony thing about which he might want to inform himself is if Louisiana will suspend your licence if there is an unsatisfied judgment. Some states will do that upon petition of the plaintiff's counsel. Many states will require an SR-22. Those things are expensive.


And unless OP is a homeowner, he'd probably be better off bankrupting the judgement off his record anyway.

Sounds like he's already pretty close.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> And unless OP is a homeowner, he'd probably be better off bankrupting


There IS a way for a homeowner to do that, and keep their home.
Depends on your state ... but, in Cali I formed a Nevada Corporation, and the corp "loaned" me $100,000 (twice my equity) and put a second mortgage on my home.
No equity ... you want it?
The corp still gets paid.


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

Drivingforfun said:


> Those Limits aren't going to cover a damn thing... You get in an at fault accident and you'll be bankrupt before the end of year after being sued for all you own... No thanks 100/300/100 for me.
> 
> View attachment 514675


And what happens when you hit the inner-city bus? That 100/300/100 will be sopped up in no time by a guy like this:


----------



## NOXDriver (Aug 12, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> And, guess who's responsible for the balance?


Nothing a few bankruptcies won't solve.

If hospitals and lawyers wanted to get paid, they wouldn't rig the system against the people who they expect to pay them.


----------



## Frontier Guy (Dec 27, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> What Original Poster is telling us is that he is essentially judgment-proof. The ony thing about which he might want to inform himself is if Louisiana will suspend your licence if there is an unsatisfied judgment. Some states will do that upon petition of the plaintiff's counsel. Many states will require an SR-22. Those things are expensive.


Nobody is 100% judgement proof, if there is a will, there is a way


----------



## islanddriver (Apr 6, 2018)

Drivingforfun said:


> Those Limits aren't going to cover a damn thing... You get in an at fault accident and you'll be bankrupt before the end of year after being sued for all you own... No thanks 100/300/100 for me.
> 
> View attachment 514675


100/300/100 isn't really any better. At least if your doing Uber with pax or going to get pax you are covered for 1 million


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Frontier Guy said:


> Nobody is 100% judgement proof, if there is a will, there is a way


You _ain't _been don the same roads that I have. There are some who are.


----------



## Frontier Guy (Dec 27, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> You _ain't _been don the same roads that I have. There are some who are.


With the right lawyers and resources...

Late 90's, I worked with a woman who was in a car accident, the dude that hit her was stoned, ran a red light at 60 mph and t-boned her. Her medical bills, and those of her passenger exceeded $500K. They both sued him, the guy was in his 40's, unemployed, only income was unemployment, had nothing in his name, so he claimed. He didn't have squat in his bank account, he lived with his elderly Mom, technically, he was judgement proof. The lawyer they hired had debt collectors and skip tracers in-house who handled these cases, they dug and dug and dug, couldn't find anything. They got the judgement anyhow, then, every 6 months, they would update the judgement, 9 yrs (statue of limitations is often 10 yrs) after getting the judgement, guys mother died, leaving her estate to him and his sibling. Skip Tracer/Debt Collector, every 90 days would check bank accounts, credit reports, obituaries, everything of people they had judgements against. Oops, Mom's obituary happened to pop up in the paper, and there was juniors name listed. They double checked, triple checked, cross checked, yep it was him. Momma left a house, life insurance, bank accounts, property. I don't recall the numbers, but the lawyers were able to force the trustee to sell everything in the estate to come up with cash, they split the cash between the siblings, and Jr. got squat, it all went these two ladies. It didn't cover everything, but she did ok.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Frontier Guy said:


> With the right lawyers and resources...


............and situation......................................

In this case, the guy did eventually get something. The judgment proof people with whom I dealt, not only had nothing, but had no potential to get anything.

The technology has advanced so far these days that a computer can search those records while the lawyer's office is closed overnight. It can then have a list of matches for the legal assistant the next day.


----------

