I Have been sued

[Seldon]

Does anyone know if my Auto Insurance company loses my law suit for which they would only pay out x amount of dollars, could I lose my property etc as I do not work and everything is in my husbands name also. I live in California

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seldon:
Does anyone know if my Auto Insurance company loses my law suit for which they would only pay out x amount of dollars, could I lose my property etc as I do not work and everything is in my husbands name also. I live in California<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Theoretically, yes. You purchased X dollars of coverage, even though you could have purchased more (X+) - - and could have also purchased an "umbrella policy" (X++) to cover you for even more. However, you took a chance that you wouldn't cause damages in excess of X, and if the Plaintiff wins the lawsuit, you could be held liable to pay any amounts above X.

Insofar as Cumis Counsel is concerned, if an actual conflict of interest arises between insurer and insured (e.g., coverage is disputed), the insured may be entitled to independent (Cumis)) counsel; [Dynamic Concepts, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exch. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999, 1007, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882, 887. Not every conflict of interest requires the insurer to provide independent counsel for the insured. The conflict must be "significant, not merely theoretical, actual, not merely potential." [Dynamic Concepts, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exch. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999, 1007, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882, 887] The test is whether the conflict "precludes insurer-appointed defense counsel from presenting a quality defense for the insured." [Dynamic Concepts, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exch., supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1008, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d at 888]

The fact that the damages claimed are only partially covered by the policy does not itself create a conflict of interest requiring Cumis counsel. [See Dynamic Concepts, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exch. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999, 1007, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882, 887 (dictum)]

· No conflict exists merely because the insured is sued for an amount in excess of policy limits. [Ca Civil § 2860(b); see also Blanchard v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 345, 350, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 884, 887--suit for damages only partially covered by policy]

IAAL

------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."



[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited April 19, 2000).]

 

[Seldon]

Thanks for your reply.
It wouldnt be so bad if I had acctually caused this accident. I am an innocent party.
This womans husbands law firm is doing all of this

 

[lars coltrane]

First off, since you are not at fault for the accident, you do not have to worry. Second, since you have coverage and your insurance is hiring counsel, make sure that they settle the case under the policy limits.