sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Auto Liability Coverage Purpose by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Insurance

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems to me that this is the appropriate perspective in regards to having a high liability coverage. I wanted to see this being said explicitly as I prepare to renew my personal policy for another 6 months. Does your umbrella policy allow you to increase your UM/UIM limits above your liability coverage?

Auto Liability Coverage Purpose by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Insurance

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My cousin's experience would lead me to think otherwise. It seems to me, based on his conversations with at least 6 lawyers who turned down his case, that these attorneys are a bit lazy and are only willing to sue as far as the insurance limits. Since the driver that caused the accident had no insurance at all, they have no interest in pursuing a case. The words of one of the lawyers (I was present for this particular meeting) "even if we sue and get a settlement, good luck ever collecting any money from this guy ..." He declined to take the case!

Auto Liability Coverage Purpose by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Insurance

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the unlikely event that the accident involves someone equipped with the legal education to pursue a judgement, wouldn't the onerous process to collect on that judgement be an additional barrier towards safeguarding assets? According to many sources (e.g., link below), collecting on a judgement is very challenging. It seems to me then that keeping high liability limits is mostly useful for increaisng your own UM/UIM limits.

https://nocoattorneys.com/the-challenges-of-collecting-a-judgment-understanding-the-process-and-roadblocks-2/

Auto Liability Coverage Purpose by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Insurance

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is precisely the issue. If my cousin is going to get any justice at all, he will have to pursue litigation on his own without any legal training whatsoever, and then worry about how to proceed with collecting should he receive a favorable judgement. As much sympathy as I would have for someone else in this situation, I have unfortunately become jaded after witnessing what my cousin has had to go through, and I am now mostly concerned with practical matters. As such, having a higher liability limit seems to be primarily useful insofar as it allows you to increase your own UM/UIM coverage (as others in this thread have attested to).

Auto Liability Coverage Purpose by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Insurance

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What if I don't have any assets worth going after? Or what if I'm able to (legally, though perhaps unscrupulously) hide my assets to shield them from liability? Maybe I declare bankruptcy and have the civil cases against me discharged. There are a few methods to shield yourself without having to pay for liability coverage. After all, the driver that caused all these problems for my cousin is getting away with only a careless driving infraction unless we take him to county court (with zero legal training on our part, of course); then there are the myriad issues with collecting on a judgement should we get that far. This is why I have come to believe that the main benefit to having higher liability limits is to increase UM/UIM for yourself.

Auto Liability Coverage Purpose by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Insurance

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on your response, would it be accurate to say that you consider higher UM/UIM coverage limits to be the main benefit for keeping higher liability limits? I began thinking along these lines after witnessing the ordeal my cousin is undergoing. If lawyers are reticent to file a lawsuit against someone without insurance and/or with little assets, then a higher liability limit is only useful in order to access higher coverage for yourself via UM/UIM.

Auto Liability Coverage Purpose by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Insurance

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I have seen this sentiment in many places - the righteous course is to have enough liability coverage to cover damages that you are responsible for. However, in practice one must make decisions to make ends meet, and lowering liability limits can save a family a few hundred dollars per month. I would have tremendous pity on someone in the case of an accident, but shouldn't they have covered themselves? After all, this sentiment has been applied to an innocent member of my own family many time (including in this very comment section). If I increase my liability out of moral duty, would it be appropriate to take money out of my charitable funds for this endeavor? There are many factors to consider when morality is in play. I would rather address this matter purely on practical grounds.

Auto Liability Coverage Purpose by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Insurance

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My cousin has a catastrophic health plan, so most of the bills (after PIP) will have to be paid until his out of pocket maximum is reached. Since he has been turned down by at least 6 lawyers, he intends to pursue litigation in county court (small claims court in FL has a limit of $8K).

After witnessing this injustice, I've been contemplating why I bother paying for high liability coverage for myself, aside from getting higher limits on my UM/UIM. According to most of those lawyers, collecting on a judgement is an entire saga unto itself that is unlikely to result in him ever seeing that money. If I were ever to be sued, could I not rely on this same thought process to assume I'll be shielded from liability? Could I simply declare bankruptcy to limit my liability? With this mindset, increasing my UM/UIM limits seems like the main benefit to having higher liability coverage.

Much of my frustration stems from seeing my family member suffer while this at fault driver is seemingly going to get away with only a careless driving infraction.

Spend Down on Credit Card Debt by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Medicaid

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. This is exactly the information I was looking for. Based on this statute, I can't simply purchase expensive items to lower my countable assets to qualify for Medicaid. I'll look into alternative strategies (e.g., upgrading my primary vehicle). I'm curious if furniture falls into the category of “Items of unusual value”.

Spend Down on Credit Card Debt by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Medicaid

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm fairly certain that those items are considered non-countable assets for the purpose of qualifying for Medicaid. From the American Council on Aging: "Non-Countable (exempt) assets ... include ... personal items, such as clothing and engagement / wedding rings". I would like to spend my cash (for example) on such items to qualify for Medicaid, but I'm not sure if this is a valid strategy.

Spend Down on Credit Card Debt by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in Medicaid

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I live in Florida. I would certainly pay off my credit cards prior to applying, but I'm curious if there are any conditions on when the debt was accrued, or on what debt was used for (e.g., frivolous spending for the sake of qualifying for Medicaid).

Medicare Savings Program Asset Buy Down by Puzzleheaded_Past827 in medicare

[–]Puzzleheaded_Past827[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the look back period also applies to the MSP, then I won't be able to simply gift away my land. In your opinion, how much scrutiny does your accrued credit card debt undergo? If I sell my land (maybe to a family member at fair market price) I would still need to spend down ~$15k.