Online Car Insurance Quotes

Searched and found a few threads discussing incidents but none specifically answering the question.

Both wife and I have health insurance from work with annual out of pocket caps. In this scenario, is there any need to add uninsured motorist coverage for medical? My understanding is that in the case of an accident, if I am hurt:

1. I claim against my health insurance company (HIC)
2. HIC will try to get reimbursed by at-fault's auto insurance company from their liability coverage
3. If at-fault is uninsured or under-insured, HIC will go after my auto insurance company for UM coverage
4. Any remainder is borne by HIC

Is this sequence of events correct?
If so, from my point of view, dealing with auto insurance companies is my HIC's headache and not having UM coverage does not affect me. No?

ETA: It is only about $200 extra per year for me to add UM. But I still want to be aware if it is buying me anything useful that my health insurance doesn't already provide.

I received summons last night indicating that I am being sued. Here is the background:

I dropped off my car to get tires replaced at costco last year. While the costco employee (A) was backing my car out of the costco parking lot, another driver (B) hit the back of my car. Ambulances came and took (B) to hospital. Person (A) was found at fault by the police for unsafe backing. At that time I had full auto insurance(500K/500K) and umbrella policy (2M) with Geico. 2 months after the accident Geico denied my auto claim and costco fully paid for my car repair and they also paid 2K diminished value. I am no longer with Geico since they raised my home insurance (Homesite) by 40%.

The lawsuit is seeking damage of 2.5K and above (whatever that means) due to the injury to the driver (B). Defendants are: Person (A), Costco and me.

The summons seemed to indicate I need to contact Geico and submit a "Appearance" form before the receive date (in July).

Do I/should I contact Geico and file a liability claim, even though they denied my claim last year? Do I need to hire a personal lawyer or will Geico provide me with one? I personally know nothing about laws and had never experienced with any lawsuits.

Thank you.

Originally accident link(posted to the wrong thread) repair cost was 9.5K.

Edited to add some more info and correct some mistakes.

This question is about whether your auto insurance will provide you with an attorney when your car was involved in a hit-and-run

here is the scenario:

You have reason to believe that a valet attendant bangs a car and does a hit and run with your car. Your relative was driving with others who can attest to being there when the car was left for the valet --- all cash no records/ just witnesses

a couple months later you are contacted by the police --- your relative makes a statement that the car was left with the valet and she didn't do it

the relative has car insurance and you have car insurance

under most policies, are you and the relative entitled to a lawyer paid from the policy?

I have an at fault accident that occurred just over 3 years ago. I am repricing auto insurance and found that many (in fact most) auto insurance quote forms I have come across ask for incidents in the past 5 years. These companies have been quoting me out higher than those only looking at 3 years. I searched previous topics here and searched google without much luck finding a list of insurers that only look at the 3 previous years of a driver's record.

I did most of the legwork to start a list that may help others that are in a similar situation. Keep in mind this may be state specific so YMMV but here are my results for drivers in Oregon. Please add any others to the list that you have encountered as this could be a useful resource in the absence of any other list out there that I can find:

AAA -OR (3 Years for an at fault accident; 3 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
Farmers -OR (3 Years for an at fault accident; 3 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
GMAC -OR (3 Years for an at fault accident; 3 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
Kemper (Unitrin) -OR (3 Years for an at fault accident; 3 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
Amica -OR (3 years for all accidents or violations; 5 years for a claim)
Statefarm -OR (3 years for minor accidents, claims, or violations; 5 years for a major violation)
Progressive -OR (5 Years for an at fault accident; 3 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
Allstate -OR (5 Years for an at fault accident; 5 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
MetLife -OR (5 Years for an at fault accident; 5 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
Nationwide -OR (5 Years for an at fault accident; 5 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
Geico -OR (5 Years for an at fault accident; 5 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
Travelers -OR (5 Years for an at fault accident; 5 years for not at fault accidents, claims, or violations)
Ameriprise (Costco)-OR (3 Years for accidents or claims; 5 years for traffic violations)

Car insurance discounts, especially in today's economy, are very important to motorists. California recently made changes to state auto insurance regulations that make it easier to determine if a...

(PRWeb May 17, 2012)

Last week, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a state initiative in a stated effort to curb purported no-fault fraud by “getting rid of deceptive doctors” and “shutting down medical mills.” The problem that Gov. Cuomo seeks to address is that some No-Fault doctors engage in fraudulent billing procedures, according to Cuomo, which reportedly results in “hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance costs to New Yorkers.” In order to implement this initiative, Gov. Cuomo has directed the Department of Financial Services (DFS) to issue a new regulation that will permit the Dept. to “ban doctors that engage in fraudulent and deceptive practices.”

Additionally, the initiative involves audits of 135 medical providers whose billing procedures “have raised concerns”, demanding information from these providers as to their corporate structure, payment requests to insurance companies, and the physicians’ participation in the medical practice (as opposed to businessmen). The providers who treat car accident victims will receive a form with fourteen days to respond. The failure to do so may result in the provider being banned from further participation in the no-fault system.

Further, in what would seem to be a lack of due process, prior to a hearing, a list of providers that are “suspected of no-fault fraud” will be sent to the Department of Health (DOH) and the State Education Department (SED) for their review. Then, DFS will conduct hearings. In my opinion, before making allegations and referring cases to these other agencies, DFS should conduct hearings first, but that is not the manner in which the State intends to operate. There is also the implicit threat that in “appropriate cases”, the DOH and SED will revoke medical licenses and decide whether criminal charges should be filed.

One of the primary motivations for the Cuomo initiative is the allegation that New York’s auto insurance rates are the 4th highest in the nation, specifically due to fraud in the No-Fault system. Interestingly, when the New York State Trial Lawyers (NYSTLA) introduced legislation before the New York State Assembly known as the “Sunshine Act”, which would require insurance companies to open their books, show their earnings, and prove whether no-fault fraud was the real reason behind the excessive premiums or just a ruse to raise premiums, their well paid lobbyists bitterly oppose this regulation. This is an issue Governor Cuomo should be exploring as part of his effort to stamp out fraud in the No-Fault insurance industry.

What Governor Cuomo’s initiative also does not address is fraud by the insurance companies in denying medical care to injured victims of car accidents. Let me explain. Back in 1974, when the No-Fault Law was implemented, the purpose of the law was to restrict auto accident claims with the provision that the victim would have to suffer a “serious injury” to have a legal basis to sue for his or her injuries. A “serious injury” under New York’s Insurance Law includes a fracture, disfigurement, dismemberment, loss of use of a body part or system, and non-permanent injuries which lead to a “substantial limitation” of one or more parts of the body. In exchange for the restrictions imposed on auto claims, no-fault insurance was to provide up to a minimum of $50.000.00 in medical and economic (lost wages) benefits to car accident victims.

However, car insurance companies have created a mockery of the original statute. Through their lobbying efforts, and their huge impact on the Court system, hundreds of thousands of car accident victims who have suffered torn tendons, ligaments, and spinal injuries such as herniated discs, routinely have their cases dismissed before they ever get to trial through motions by insurance company defense lawyers claiming that these injuries do not meet the “no-fault threshold.” This includes those who have undergone surgery to treat those injuries!

Further, those injured in car crashes must now submit to no-fault “IME’s” (“Independent” medical examinations), which consist of five to ten minute examinations by doctors hired and paid for by the very insurance companies that “are on your side…that you are in good hands with…”, who make findings as to whether injuries meet the no-fault threshold in these cursory, biased examinations. If the “IME” doctor determines that the person does not have a “threshold injury”, in short order they will receive a letter from the insurance company informing them that all further benefits are denied! To add to the ridiculousness of calling these examinations “independent”, the insurance companies all use the same doctors for these “IME”s, the ones who will reliably find that the victim needs no further treatment, can go back to work and their normal activities, and has no “serious injury.”

In sum, Governor Cuomo, if you want to combat fraud in the insurance industry, and do this in an even handed manner, explore the auto insurance industry’s practices when it comes to “IME’s” and investigate the true reasons behind the excessive auto insurance premiums in New York, in addition to the initiative to root out "medical mills."

This is part two in a two part series relating to social benefits from personal injury lawsuits.

Georgian Luger Nodar Kumaritashvili died on February 12, 2010. He should not have.

Lawsuits remind people to take the care necessary to make sure they do not injure others.

The designer of the luge course and the International Olympic Committee knew in advance how dangerous the course was and still sent relatively inexperienced luge riders down the track. They knew athletes were crashing more often, and at higher speeds than normally occur in the sport.

Such dangerous conditions occur because the speed and danger of the track make the event sell better. It makes the race more exciting. It also saves the money that should have been spend on having an engineer review the course to determine how high that safety wall should have been, and the expense of making the course safer, including a higher wall and padding and barricading the steal beams next to the track.

Huffington Post blogger Marian Salzman wrote: aWith 82 countries participating in the Games this year, shouldn't the course have been designed to be safe for all of them? Where were the safety wardens?a

Personal injury lawyers are part of the safety wardens in Southern California. Any business knows that when they produce a defective product or a dangerous product, and sell it, personal injury lawyers will hold them accountable. Personal injury attorneys will make them pay for their negligence. So, manufacturers are more careful.

Even when you drive on the freeway, people watch how fast they are going. Why donat people speed more? Because they do not want to get a ticket. The reason people do not want to get tickets is because it will make their insurance rates go up. Tickets make insurance rates go up because speeding causes auto accidents. It places other people in unnecessary danger.

When drivers hurt people, car accident attorneys hold the negligent driver accountable. These lawsuits give people a reason to be more careful when they drive. Drivers are forced to think about the safety of others not only to protect other people (which is the right thing to do), but also to prevent their insurance rates from going up.

This is part 3 in a series of posts explaining benefits of lawsuits and insurance claims when people in Southern California are injured in an accident.

People buy insurance for several reasons. Some buy insurance because the law says they have to. Some people buy insurance to protect themselves. If they are negligent and hurt someone in an a car crash (it can happen to anyone), they want to make sure it does not cost them a lot of money which can take away from their retirement, or their kidas college education fund. Still other people buy insurance because they want to make sure that if they cause an auto accident and hurt someone, the person they injure is taken care of. They want to make sure that they have the means to take care of any injury they cause.

The minute you are hurt in a pedestrian accident, or in any car accident in Southern California, or from any negligence of another, under California law, you are entitled to fair compensation for your injuries. The reality of modern insurance companies, is that you will have to fight to get the compensation that is rightfully yours.

This is part 2 in a series relating to San Fernando Valley Car Crash Claims as a benefit to everyone

I was recently contacted by a friend asking for help. Her sister was crossing the street in Woodland Hills, in a crosswalk and was hit by a car which was coming from Encino. She suffered a significant injury, yet, she did not want to talk to a lawyer and did not want to seek compensation for her injuries. She felt bad for the person that hit her.

I explained to my friend that her sister has been brainwashed by the insurance companies, and she has no reason to feel sorry for them. The person that hit her had insurance. California law requires that you have insurance if you drive. The person that hit her was negligent. Generally, when there is a car accident, where a car hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk, the driver is at fault. Therefore, the pedestrian is entitled to be compensated for her injuries. She is entitled to receive medical attention for her injuries. If it was my family member that was hurt, I would want them to get medical care. The driver (or her insurance company), is legally obligated to pay for that care.

The pedestrian is also entitled to be compensated for her pain and suffering. That phrase has almost become a bad word in our system of justice. It should not be. She was injured. It is painful. It is inconvenient. It forces huge negative changes on a personas life. For example, I want to play with my son tomorrow morning. If I am injured in a collision such that either I cannot lift him in the air, or tickle him, or if I have to endure pain when I do it, that is not fair. If you came to me and said, aI will pay you $100 not to play with your son tomorrow, I would not take the money.a How much is fair compensation. At what point would I say, aOkay, I will take the money and not play for one day; or maybe two days, or maybe six months.a

It seems only fair that a person should be compensated when they are harmed because someone else is negligent.

The other part of this equation is that in California, you will not be compensated for the cost of hiring an attorney to help you. Unfortunately, insurance companies are less than willing to provide the fair compensation that they are supposed to provide. That means that people that are injured require legal assistance. If they only receive the cost of their medical care, they are not truly compensated. Pain and suffering compensation, or non-economic damages as it is called, defrays the cost of the legal assistance.

This is part one in a series on why Los Angeles car accident victims should be compensated for their injuries.

There are a lot of lawsuits filed every year in Los Angeles County. Many of those cases stem from auto accidents. Yet when we talk to jurors, they all complain that there are too many frivolous lawsuits. If you ask for more detail, most cannot explain why they feel this way, they have simply been told by the media and the insurance companies that there are too many lawsuits.

Certainly not every automobile accident need result in a lawsuit, nor must every injury result in a lawsuit. Sometimes, people are injured simply because they are careless. Sometimes, people are injured because somebody else is careless. In Southern California and throughout the United States, our laws are designed to protect us from the negligence of others. Thus serves two purposes: (1) it compensates the injured; and (2) it encourages people to be safe and protect others.

As car accident lawyers located in Woodland Hills, we review our clientas auto insurance policies all the time. By the time we do so, it is because someone has been in a car accident and has been injured. As personal injury lawyers handling auto accidents in the San Fernando Valley, we are here to make sure our clients are properly compensated for the injuries that were caused by the accident.

Unfortunately, at that point, it is too late to talk about what insurance they should have had.

One of the first steps in helping our clients is looking at their auto insurance coverage. California law requires that all drivers have basic liability coverage of at least $15,000. It is a misdemeanor to drive without insurance. In addition, you are required to notify the DMV if you are in an accident and let them know who your insurance company is. We handle this process for our clients. Without question, this is the easy part, everyone should/must have at least the minimum required insurance coverage of $15,000.

That is not the end of the question. Liability coverage, that is coverage which will be paid out to someone you may injure if you cause an accident and serves two important functions.

Protect Yourself and Your Family: First, insurance protects you and your family. If you cause a collision, if you do not have adequate coverage, the person you hit may be able to take the money you have been saving for retirement, your childas college education, a new home, or whatever is important to you.

Second: It protects the person you hit. That is a good thing. We should all take responsibility for our own actions. If we are careless and we hurt somebody, they should be compensated for what we have done. That is fair. That is also part of the purpose of insurance, to make sure someone we accidentally hurt is cared for, without destroying our own life. To hurt someone is to take something away from them. Not to compensate them for their injury; paying for the damage to their car, paying their medical bills, and paying for the imposition on their life (pain and suffering), is like stealing.

However, when you accidentally hurt someone, that does not mean your life should be destroyed either. That is part of the purpose of insurance. It enables us to properly compensate someone we hit, without taking away from our own life.

That brings us back to the question, aHow much insurance should I have.a The answer to that question is going to depend on your income and your savings. If you have limited assets and limited income, you can likely only afford basic coverage. You can drive legally and provide some protection to someone you injure. If you have a lot of assets, you should probably have an umbrella insurance policy. To qualify for an umbrella policy, you will have to have a certain amount of auto insurance. Those people will probably need to have $250,000 in liability coverage.

Insurance.comas new interactive aUh-Oh! Calculatora allows you to compute the average percentage increase to your auto insurance rate for 14 common violations.

(PRWeb May 15, 2012)

In an effort to enhance and improve the quality of the coverage that it provides, Mexican Insurance Store is now strictly offering policies from insurers that have minimum ratings of A- from...

(PRWeb May 14, 2012)

The California State Office of Administrative Law approved major changes to auto insurance regulations relating to determining fault in motor vehicle accidents and eligibility for good-driver...

(PRWeb May 11, 2012)