redivy6 said:
again, thank you ever so much for your
two cents.
i wrote in looking for helpful suggestions, but instead
got your disservice. It is clear to me that you are
a very educated individul with some extensive experience in
this matter and I would thank you if not for your
inability to mix your knowledge with a proper
"bedside manner", which is important when dealing with other
people in ANY situation, including law.
You can be honest without being brutal.
I was able to procure the help of our
company's rather large, rather powerful law firm who
gave me the suggestion to keep fighting until all options
are exhausted and have given me the use of their facilities
to stand up for myself rather than letting a potentially
crooked comany who thinks I will do exactly what you suggested, "bully" me.
As for your calling me an "idiot", I represent some of the most powerful actors in hollywood, and manage their careers rather succesfully. If that allows me to be an idiot, then I am happily so. I am not incapable of recouping the funds needed to pay the costs that have occured, It has become a matter of principle that I do not want to let go of - that's all.
Best to you in your terribly successful career.
Really.
My response:
You're either lying to me, or lying to yourself. I can't help it if the law is brutal for some people, like yourself.
I deal in these issues on a daily basis, as opposed to corporate "entertainment law" attorneys who couldn't identify an insurance law issue if it smacked them in the face.
If you work for a management company, for actors, and have attorneys at your disposal, then why would you come to an Internet legal site, and why can't you pay your damages you caused ? Surely, you must be making enough money, right ?
The insurance company isn't crooked, it's just that you're an idiot who's unwilling, or educationally unable, to understand the law and what you've done to yourself. What a loser.
You're going to learn the hard way, and then you're going to say to yourself, "You know, that son-of-b!tch IAAL was right - - there's nothing I can do."
But, you seem to know so much about law. So much, that you can't even identify "slander" from opinion. That's how I knew you were just a little idiot - - and that's my opinion of you.
So, PLEASE, if you think anything I've said to you is actionable, take me up on my dare to you. I invite you to prove you're not an idiot, and sue me, and then win. But you can't - - because you need a shrink, and you're always going to be an idiot who'll always get into trouble.
You can't even understand simple, legal ideas and laws. Just how do you manage your everyday life ?
The "plain meaning" of Insurance Code § 663 is that failure to pay the specified premium on or before the date specified in the renewal offer results in termination of the policy. [Monteleone v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 509, 516, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 48, 52]
**** Late payment of the premium does not restore coverage retroactively. Therefore, unless the insurer expressly agrees otherwise, there is no coverage for accidents occurring between the expiration date and date the premium was paid. [Monteleone v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at 516, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d at 52--immaterial that amended policy declarations (received after accident occurred) showed continuous coverage because in offering to reinstate, insurer had warned there would be a lapse in coverage]****
When an auto insurer sends a timely offer of renewal stating future coverage is contingent on payment of the designated premium before the end of the current policy period, the policy expires accordingly if the premium is not paid. [See Ca Ins § 660(i)]
Notice of nonrenewal (or cancellation) is not required in such a case because there is simply an expiration. [Kates v. Workmen's Auto Ins. Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 494, 504, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 852, 858]
IAAL
[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 12-18-2000 at 10:35 PM]
