On May 3, 6:22 am, s...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> Proportional recovery would seem to provide the best incentives and
> most fairness.
We agree on that, Seth. I'm all for fair and proportional settlements rather than all-or-nothing, winner-take-all litigation, and in favor of fairness in general in just about any other context I can think of.
But unless our purpose is just to raise public consciousness and/or lobby the legislature for a change in the law, we do a disservice to people like OP if we give him false hopes that he may be able to get more money back to repay his deductible than he already did. In this thread I was just trying to explain some possible reasons, that apply in some states, why he may not have been able to get any more than the $550 his insurer already got back from the other guy for him.
Philosophizing about ideal justice here on MLM is great, but in analyzing a particular case we have to deal with the law as it is, not as we want it to be. And the law in most states is, the insurance company gets first dibs on a subrogation recovery from the responsible party before any of that cash recovery goes to reimburse the deductible. Keep in mind that insurance is risk management, but not a no-risk guarantee; so folks who know that in advance and don't want to put a lot of their own money at risk can pay the premium for a lower, or even zero, deductible. In that sense even the majority rule is fair to both sides in the long run. Regards,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment