Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Reese Hamm; Tax-chick
It is my understanding that the whole purpose of uninsured-underinsured policies is to cover those who aren't insured. Since the at-fault driver's insurance didn't cover expenses for all the victims, it fell to each individual's insurance policies to make up the difference. It seems odd that he would be able to claim a portion of the other victim's policy in the first place.

Impossible to tell from the details provided, but I suspect the portion of the uninsured-underinsured he collected was from the driver's insurance policy. His son was a passenger in the vehicle that was struck, and the driver's insurance would cover the driver and passengers.

29 posted on 08/02/2013 1:39:47 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: tacticalogic

Yeah, I can easily understand why he would collect a majority of the money from the at-fault guy - and even a portion of the victim driver’s payout.

If I read the ruling (http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/5thDistrict/5100037.pdf)* correctly, there were five total victims in the accident - Herrin’s son who died; the victim driver, Duncan; two of Duncan’s sons; and another teen friend.

Herrin somehow ended up with more than $677k while the rest was split between the remaining four (one of whom has had at least two surgeries.) It doesn’t seem fair that a lady who wasn’t at fault and paid the premiums for the extra coverage would be left with such a small portion to cover what I would imagine are some rather hefty expenses. The accident wasn’t her fault yet she was treated almost as if it were.

*Per the ruling, Bramlet (at-fault driver) had a standard policy which paid $100k. Duncan (victim driver) had a policy with added uninsured-underinsured coverage which paid $800k. And Herrin (dead victim’s father) also had uninsured-underinsured coverage which covered his son and paid out $1.6 mil even though the son wasn’t driving or a passenger in a family vehicle. (Though I’ve never heard of such coverage, the way the ruling reads, this was separate from life insurance.)

The court’s line of thought seems to have been:
~The $1.6 mil was Herrin’s alone, no split nor should there have been.
~The $100k was split with the lion’s share going to Herrin whose loss was the greatest, no problem there either.
~The $800k was also split which would have been fair if Herrin hadn’t received such a disproportionate (key word) share of that payout. Herrin collecting such a large portion from the other victim’s policy in effect punished her for his son’s death which was completely outside of her control.


30 posted on 08/02/2013 2:33:18 PM PDT by Reese Hamm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson