Officer Drops Suit, Placed On Leave

There is seldom any dispute between insurers in personal injury cases.

What you describe is common, however, for auto property damage claims. Property damage insurers often have a right of subrogation against the tortfeasor (who theoretically has his own insurance). In some states, auto insurers are required to send all their disputed property damage claims to arbitration, thus easing the burden on the courts (and insureds).

As for your other point, I wouldn’t buy an insurance policy that excluded the tortious conduct of others. Regardless, I would expect that most courts would find such a provision to be against public policy. I mean, the tortious conduct of others is one of the chief reasons why you purchase insurance (particularly auto insurance)!

Thank you for the clarification. But is it not true that lawsuits that seem to be disputes the named parties are actually disputes between their respective insurance companies? We all know that insurance companies are loathe to pay out claims, so it’s a matter of: “Your insurance company should pay,” “No, your insurance company should pay.”

markm,

This is just idle speculation (which, after all, is what the internet is all about), but is it not possible that the policy could simply state, “This policy does not cover injuries that are the result of another’s tortous (sp?) conduct”?

I don’t think so.

What usually happens when the injured party has health insurance is that the health insurer pays the majority of his medical bills.

When the injured party sues, the health insurer then has a right to file a lien against any proceeds the injured party gets out of a settlement or verdict.

Usually, the injured party’s insurer can negotiate with the health insurer to reduce the amount of the lien (in my experience, it ends up being about 2/3 of the original bill).

If my health insurance refused to pay a covered medical expense, the first entity I’d sue would be the health insurance company – not the alleged tortfeasor.

But that only gets you money to cover your bills – where’s the lottery jackpot?

The answer, my friend, is in the “noneconomic damages,” which are sometimes outlandishly huge and the main purpose of which (though you’ll never hear a PI attorney admit it) is to ensure that the attorney gets paid.

The puddle of water, supposedly left negligently on the floor, was the result of bringing the wet near-drowning victim into the house. To hear the plaintiffs lawyer castigating the family in print for “bringing this on themselves” is a new low.