This was my understanding - the insurance covers the car and damages to the other car. Personal goods hould be covered by homeowner’s insurance, and isn’t injury liability for car accidents a different amoun than damages? If it’s your own car, the special after-market add-ons like a fancy spoiler or turbochargerare also required to be declared whe you get insuance, otherwise they’re insuring the stock car.
I recall one case where faulty cabin warmers (a thing in Canada) were causing fires. The insurance company said if it was bolted down, part of the car, then it was covered. Some people simply bolt them to a small plywood square and the insurance company said “that’s not part of the car, we don’t cover the fire damage.”
I like to refer to the simplistic approach as “Kamikaze defense”. GO a head and sue, you won’t get enough to cover the lawyer’s bill… An option that disappears once you have decent equity in your house.
IIRC a maor difference is that in Canada it is usual for the losing party to pay the winning party’s legal bill. Consequently, frivolous lawsuits (“How much will you pay us to go away?”) are less common in Canada.
Yes, this is the general rule, so a plaintiff who starts a lawsuit has to consider what the financial risk may be. That generally doesn’t exist in US civil litigation.
The costs for an unsuccessful plaintiff can be waived by the courts in particular cases (eg public interest litigation).
(And this is not a unique-to-Canada rule. Most common law countries have a similar costs rule. American lawyers call it the “English rule” as if it were something odd about English courts, when it’s generally the norm. The American courts are the outlier here.)
I travel extensively in the Midwest (Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana), as well as in Alabama, and I concur, both billboard advertising and television advertising for personal-injury law firms is extremely common in all of those. It’s seemed to have become even more common over the past decade, too.
I regularly watch the evening newscast on a local independent station (WGN-TV in Chicago); there are at least five different such firms* which are frequent advertisers on those newscasts.
*- I have never been involved in a lawsuit, but I can easily name all five, because their ads are so pervasive: Malman Law, Kenneth J. Allen, Lerner & Rowe, Aiken Law, Vrdolyak Law
I, too, think of Lerner & Lowe when I see their ads. AFAICT, they seem to be a franchise or chain operation, with offices in a number of cities and states.
I think it’s implicit in the answers so far, but I thought I’d say it directly: legal liability and insurance limits are different things.
The OP question is phrased in terms of limits on legal liability. Any limits on legal liability depend on the applicable law, not the limits of insurance coverage.
Responsible and provably liable are two different things. I hope you’ve got a dashcam good enough to read their plate when that rock or mud comes off their truck and trashes your grille or windshield.
Contributory negligence theory also applies unless prohibited by statute.
Here in RI, and also in NY, trucks owners are responsible for any damage caused by objects falling off of trucks or being kicked up by their tires. Commercial trucks are also required to have mudflaps to prevent rocks from being kicked up. In my limited experience among myself, family, and friends, the truck companies don’t contest reasonable claims. I think that’s because they don’t stand a chance in court and/or don’t want their insurance rates to increase from claims. Also, I’ve heard that MA requires auto comprehensive coverage of windshields, and maybe the rest of windows on a car.
Though there may be limits. My homeowner’s (actually renter’s) policy covers off-premises losses up to 10% of the policy maximum. So if I have a $100K policy, they will only cover $10K of off-premises losses. That’s fine for even a pretty expensive racing bicycle, or laptop computer. It’s simpler than a special rider for sports equipment or electronics because at least in my case the rider for sports equipment (usually meant to cover golf clubs, skis, etc.) requires appraisals and is depreciable, much like art work. Riders for other things like cameras, which can easily get close to that 10% limit, are simpler, cheaper, non-depreciable, and no-deductible.
The flip side of the “loser pays” system is that individuals and small businesses are less able to litigate against large corporations, even if the corporation is in the wrong, because of the threat of astronomical legal fees for losing. You’d think if it’s an open-and-shut case that there should be no issue, but the all-star team of high-priced lawyers has more capacity to steamroller you.
There’s a handful of states that have varying levels of auto glass laws that require no-fault no-deductible replacements. Kentucky and Arizona are the most accommodating in that respect, covering pretty much all glass and even plastic on lights. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, South Carolina, and Florida in some cases require no-deductible coverage for windshields but not necessarily side windows or mirrors, or they allow but don’t require no-deductible coverage.
If we were in law school (at least in America), we’d learn that the limit on legal liability is foreseeability. That’s the buzzword you want to argue : was it foreseeable for the tortfeasor to anticipate the damage?
(So, for the OP, it’s foreseeable that a driver might get into an accident with a really expensive car. So there is potential legal liability. But if that car exploded, and debris from the explosion broke a dam, flooding the local school, the driver may not be liable because a flood is not a foreseeable consequence of a car accident)
If I recall what my insurance agent told me, once upon a time in a galaxy far far away, there was a list of items that required separate appraisal on top of the homeowners’ insurance (on or off prem). Things like cameras or TV’s or laptops have obvious value. this model of laptop or camera or bike costs $X, you can look it up in a catalog - just need to document your ownership. It’s mainly the things that need appraisal - what’s your rare painting or jewelry worth? Much of that stuff cannot simply be looked up by model number. Receipts and appraisals are required. Certain things (your artwork, comic book collection, coin collection, fancy jewelry, etc.) not only need to be appraised, but may require added premiums in order to be covered.
A common thing I see on the news, is renters without tenants’ insurance. The building owner has a fire, they can can repair the building with their insurance. But the tenant is outta luck. If the fire was the landlord’s fault, they might be able to recover from that insurance… eventually. (YMMV). But meanwhile, they have to look out for themselves.
For everyone playing along, just to add to this foreseeability limit, another type of limit would be a cap on damages.
A cap law would say, even if it was foreseeable and no matter how bad someone is hurt, damages are capped at $250,000. Generally these apply to medical malpractice claims or claims against a Gov’t; or punitive damages (ie, limits how much you can punish a defendant, but no limit on making whole the hurt person). Not in the OP car wreck scenario.
*the cap laws are more complicated than this since “damages” is a broad category and is usually broken down into components and those component damages can individually be capped or not. Punitive damage is just one component.