But is someone is injured in a car accident, aren't medical costs from said accident covered by either their car insurance, or the other parties car insurance?
Did the Frost's fail to have insurance on their car as they are legally required to have?
It was a single car accident so only the families car was involved. This is important because the legally required insurance is only liability which covers other drivers if you hit them. Since this was a single car accident liability insurance would not have covered it, only comprehensive/collision would have.
Now for the sake of arguement they did have comp/coll coverage chances are they went for the minimum coverage which would put medical at about 50K I think without looking it up. Even if they had a higher coverage though auto insurance would not have covered it all and health insurance would have had to pick up the slack.
From the articles sounds like they have an SUV, living in a good part of town, in Maryland. I don't know the year and make but chances are it was a newer model. In order to only have liability insurance they would have had to either pay for the SUV in cash OR financed it extremely short term (IE 36 month paid off in 6 months for credit purposes only). Both of those cases involve a bunch of cash available that also could have been used to pay for health insurance.
Another option to all this of course is who the car actually belonged to. If the car (like the house) was registered as a business vehicle and the auto insurance was business coverage then an accident in the car during non-business use would also not be covered by the auto-insurance.
Not saying either of these is correct, just saying these are a few possibilities. I'm sure there are more out there as well.
It depends on the state you live in. In Michigan under the “no fault” law all (100%) of the medical costs would be paid, plus lost wages are covered.
It doesn’t matter who is at fault.