Every car insurance policy includes terms about the policy’s limits. The size of the limits could affect the outcome for a car accident case.
What aspects of a payment/payout could be limited?
For a policy that has promised injury liability, the amount of money paid per person could be limited. Another limitation. one that would relate to injury liability, could state the maximum amount of money paid for injuries to all of those involved in a given accident.
A policy might also have limits on the amount of property damage for which the responsible party could be held liable. The presence of a limit on a policy could create problems for an accident victim that has chosen to seek fair compensation.
Possible solutions to the problem that has been highlighted above:
During the purchase of automobile insurance, a car owner could choose to pay for an underinsured motorist option. That is meant to cover the policy holder, in case the limit on the defendant’s policy were to make it impossible for the same defendant to provide the victim with fair compensation.
Still, every underinsured motorist has a specific provision. That provision states that the amount of coverage promised by the purchased option must exceed the limits on the policy of the at-fault driver. In other words, someone that has purchased an option that promised coverage of $15,000 worth of damages could not seek $15,000 as compensation for damages, if the limit on the at-fault driver’s policy were $18,000.
The personal injury lawyer in Los Banos understands insurance companies have added that provision, in order to keep any customer from paying for a low level of coverage, and then supplementing that with coverage from an underinsured motorist option. Usually, the option would be cheaper than any liability policy. Insurance companies do not want their customers to buy the underinsured motorist option, instead of the traditional but more expensive policy.
What could be the effect if a defendant’s policy had high limits?
Such a policy would provide the adjuster with plenty of money to “play with” during the negotiations. As a result, the negotiations might go on for a fair amount of time. The adjuster might try to show that the victim was partly responsible for his or her injury. For instance, the adjuster might allege that the victim could have used an available method or device for limiting the harmful effects of any car accident.
Adjusters have used such an approach in the past, when one of the company’s policyholders has collided with a driver that had a pre-existing condition. The adjusters have tried to weaken any claim that it was the policyholder’s duty to exercise more concern for the safety of other drivers.