Yeah, it’s an Inigo thread so strap yourself in, this is probably not what you’re expecting. It comes from this thread. and specifically this quote:
Now, I’m not levelling this at Pixisis specifically, but at ANYONE who thinks this is a legitemate argument for determining the car insurance liability limits they choose to carry.
Sweet mother of Jesus, I HATE this philosophy of “I got no assets so I’ll carry low insurance limits and save myself $150-$200 a year.” This equates to “I think I’ll screw my neighbor because he can’t do a damned thing about it!”
You think that just because YOU’RE not worth more than $10k, that nobody else is? Or that you can’t do significantly more damage to someone than that? Oh sure, you can accidentaly blow a stop sign or a red light (hell I do it sometimes too, nobody’s perfect) and smash me up–maybe kill me or worse so that my very average family loses between 50-100% of its income, maybe incurs some long term medical and financial burdens…etc. But YOU’VE got no assets to lose in a lawsuit so you carry your state minimum $25k and just let the other $200k+ in expenses vanish as “uncollectable” because YOU don’t have anything to lose?
Do you really think that it’s ok to put other people’s lives and futures on the line just because you have zero or maybe even negative net worth? Fucking, STEP THE FUCK UP and buy some reponsible limits! 25/50 was almost adequate in the 1970s when it was adopted as a minimum. Back then that was a hefty salary and the cost of an above-average house in any part of the country. Now it’s only a little better than minimum wage and the cost of a modest RENOVATION of that same house! $25k doesn’t cover shit! it is inadequate and irresponsible. Legal? Yes. Responsible? Thoughtful? Anything less than selfish? Hell no.
Oh sure, I can protect myself from cheap and selfish motherfuckers like you, but I have to do it on my own dime, and even then it’s not an option in a lot of states. Why not just pony up the $300 a year (what is that, $25/month–what do you spend on cigarettes? Beer? McLunch? Gas for the SUV?) Don’t even try to tell me you can’t afford it, you DON’T afford it because you’re a selfish piece of shit who couldn’t care less if other people suffer so long as you’re “legal.”
For fuck’s sake, there’s a HUGE gap between “legal” and “responsible.”
Generally, no assets means that you’re poor. That’s kinda hard to argue with, wouldn’t you say? So how do you expect me to pay the higher insurance rates that come with more coverage when I’m poor?
I’m not trying to screw people (I have min coverage). I’m trying to eke out a living while my wife and I are in school, which isn’t all that easy to do when you never know when you will or won’t go wherever they send you, making getting a job well nigh impossible (although I’m back working part-time at the resaurant I used to work at due to the kindness of my boss).
That said, you’re a judgmental prick, and I would just love to plow into your car just to see you get screwed. You want to cover my end, have at it. Other than that you can shut your piehole.
Why are you getting mad at people who have legally mandated insurance coverage? If the legal limits are too low, write your state representative and lobby for the minimums to increase. Of course, you’ll just get more people to have no insurance, but whatever.
FWIW, I choose my level of insurance in order to protect myself, not to protect other people. I’m paying for it, it’s MY insurance, not yours. I’m protecing myself and my family from disaster, you and your family don’t enter into the equation. If you’re worried about getting injured or killed, get some good health insurance and life insurance. Get AFLAC, so [Yogi Berra]if you get hurt and miss work, it won’t hurt to miss work. [/Yogi]
Airman, don’t be fooled into thinking that having few assets means you don’t need good coverage. If the damages go over your insurance limits, you may still be liable. It’s hard to get blood from a stone, but that doesn’t mean the stone isn’t getting squeezed.
I consider it my own responsibility to get insurance to cover my own assets. I guess I never even considered that I should cross my fingers and hope that other people have enough insurance to cover my standard of living in case of an accident. If I want a big payout for myself then I buy myself some more insurance, I don’t do it because I might hit a CEO someday.
But then again I’ve learned not to rely on other people, the bastards.
I’m sorry I didn’t express myself more completely, Inigo. Those questions were trying to elicit information that might lead his agent to suggest higher limits. I in no way meant to imply that if you didn’t have assets to protect that you should carry lower limits. I also meant to bold the the 2nd part, which to me is the much more important question.
I would, however, like to nominate for a pitting, the insurance agent, from a fairly well respected company, who asked me “Why would you want to carry $300K liability when you have no assets ?” :eek:
(I was able to convice said person that I really did want the extra coverage, and then reported the agent. I was working for the company at the time.)
And Airman Doors, I have no assets, but I’m not exactly poor. But, I have scrimped and saved and gone without to pay my premiums sometimes. I would rather give up luxuries like seeing movies at the theater than carry just the state limit of liability. I think if I’m going to be driving, I should assume responsibility for the fact that I might ACCIDENTALLY cause harm to someone. I try to be a safe driver, but things happen. Og forbid I should hit someone, but if I do, they’re going to be able to collect more than $20K from my insurance company.
I’m fully aware of that. But right now what I need is insurance that makes me legal. I’ll sweat the rest if and when something happens. I don’t need Mr. Flush-With-Cash OP up there telling me what an awful person I am because things are tight. I’ve got enough problems without self-righteous pricks reminding me of my biggest one.
You should thank heaven for small favors; if it wasn’t for the law, I would carry no insurance at all. Remember that next time you back your Lexus out of the driveway. It’s a dangerous world out there.
Flush with cash? Lexus? CEO? Not me, pal. No, I just understand that driving my car means I could seriously destroy MANY lives in an instantaneous judgement error, and I have made the decision to not make that THEIR problem when the mistake was MINE.
Am I judging Airman for chosing to drive even though he can’t do it responsibly (if legally–but 25/50 deserves its own pitting)? Yep. This Fuck’s for you. Even when I was a soldier raking in the cash like the lower enlisteds do I carried better limits than most people who had something to lose.
Fear, I admire your pioneering spirit. It’s strong, self-fulfilling people like you that are the stuff of heros. Really. Because I’m sure that if I turned you into a carrot and offered your wife and kids $25,000 in the way of an apology you’d be totally OK with that. It is, after all, a dangerous world and I’m sure they’d understand that. You really are something to fear.
Pixisis don’t sweat it, I knew where you were coming from, just pulled my pin is all.
Cheesesteak I’m getting mad at people for not stepping up. The insurance limits won’t change because no politician wants to be the one who voted for making legal access to cars a more costly proposition. And the only way to make these kinds of laws stick at all is to make the infraction more expensive than compliance. Lots of people are willing to risk a $100 ticket if it means a net savings of $500 a year. Fewer are willing to risk their license, judgements, cars and possible jail time. That’s right–I’m saying that uninsured drivers need to have their cars impounded, liquidated, and the proceeds put into a fund benefitting VICTIMS of uninsured drivers. But again, no politician is willing to risk the label of “CostYouMore” So I’m stuck with my soapbox.
Smartass. I’m good–I happen to live in a state that allows me to insure myself for millions against an underinsured driver. But I can tell you as someone who has handed a new widow and her kids a check for $25,000 and a courteous rendition of “Th-th-th-that’s all folks!”, that a cash settlement of state minimum policy limits is usually where things begin to get very NOT ok.
My point is that, with regard to the title of your OP, we are only arguing about the size of the settlement required to assuage the grief of widows and orphans. Mercenary, indeed.
Thank goodness for all the lawyers I see advertised on TV, the back of phone books and bus stops. I’ll just sue! And The Heavy Hitter will get me my check!
Ah, then there appears to have been a misunderstanding? Because I tried to be clear that I was going on about “income replacement” outstanding or long-term medical bills…real expenses. “Pain and suffering” payments chapp me almost as much as low limits. Grrrrr…especialy when someone makes a grab for a massive chunk of the available settlement for “Loss of consortium” when there are other claimants with unfinalized medical expenses that need to be paid out of that put of gold. Fuckers.
I think I need to call it a day and go home and watch Ren & Stimpy. I’m getting too worked up.
Insurance doesn’t cover your assets, it provides a buffer, you can have a nillion dollars in assets and million dollar insurance but if you get hit with a 2 million dollar judgment, your assets are gone. So the equation that insurance salesmen want you to use to pick a level of insurance is pretty weak. It would be more honest to say that $50,000 covers the average liability that arises from a car accident and that $150,000 covers 90% of the historical laibility from car accidents, etc.
Minimums are just that, minimums. You are under no moral or ethical obligation to get more insurance, if you want them higher then tell congress to legislate it and see how far that gets you. Insurance is about risk and if you are comfortable with the risk then fine. Its not like the person who is responsible for an accident is the only person in the whole world that can buy insruance. YOU can buy property insurance, YOU can buy disability insurance, YOU can buy life insurance, maybe you have a visceral instinct that the person who caused the accident should be the one to carry the insurance but if they are judgmentproof they probably can’t and if they are not, then they made a choice to have more liability exposure in exchange for lower premiums…
You should read how the asbestos trusts were looted by the trial attorneys some day. These guys started off as crusaders for justice against some pretty bad corporate actors and ended up making a mad dash for the gold hurting widows and orphans in the process (mass screenings and unimpaired claims).
Right. I’d totally be with you on this note if this were GD. But in my mind, people who put other people at risk of financial devastation are fuckers. And so we find ourselves here, on the bitching floor, me being judgemental and angry instead of supporting the right of the individual to fuck his neighbor six ways to Sunday provided he does it legally.
When I first saw this thread title, I thought it would be about “mercenary” insurance salesmen who try to get people to buy more insurance than they need. I was puzzled when the OP seemed to be going in the other direction.
Then in post #10 where Inigo reveals himself to be an insurance agent, I realized that my original hypothesis was indeed correct.
It would indeed be nice if everyone could afford to pay hundreds of extra dollars each month to some Big Insurance Company on the off chance that they will have an accident someday, and then be in a position to have all the victim’s bills paid.
Of course, if that does happen, then the Big Insurance Company will see how much they paid out on this claim and promptly raise my rates by even more hundreds of dollars or cancel me entirely.
I agree with Airman Doors. If I have a choice between putting food on my table or buying more insurance than I have to, food will win every time.
I am honestly trying to understand this. But I would have to buy insurance to an infinite amount to be sure I could cover everyone I could potentially hurt. I could fall asleep at the wheel and cause a 100 car pileup on the interstate. There is no possible way I could cover potential loss for other people, which is why insurance is set up primarily for people to cover themselves. A single mom on welfare could never afford enough insurance to cover wage loss for Bill Gates, so it’s up to Bill to insure himself. It does suck when you are in an accident and have to pay money when it’s not your fault but you can also get insurance to cover this (my car insurance does not collect my deductable if I am in an accident that is not my fault, for example.)
Maybe things work differently in other states and I’m not seeing it. Michigan is a no-fault state so I am used to our laws.
I’m good–I happen to live in a state that allows me to insure myself for millions against an underinsured driver. But I can tell you as someone who has handed a new widow and her kids a check for $25,000 and a courteous rendition of “Th-th-th-that’s all folks!”, that a cash settlement of state minimum policy limits is usually where things begin to get very NOT ok.