Author Topic: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what  (Read 7174 times)

Offline Ex-airbalancer

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 40151
  • Carma: +729/-1584
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2011 Silverado 1500 LTZ ext ended cab , 2013 Lexus RX-350 F Sport
Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« on: April 25, 2008, 01:59:08 pm »
This is so stupid, you have bang your head
Sue first, then find out information

Boys accused of setting Horizon Plastics fire face civil lawsuits
Posted 4 hours ago
"This has destroyed our lives," said the mother of the younger of two youths charged with setting a multi-million-dollar fire at a Horizon Plastics in Cobourg on April 25, 2005.

Although her son, 12 at the time of the fire, and the co-accused, then 15, were found not guilty, they have been harassed ever since, she said. In small communities, people are aware of the boys' identities and the charges, but little is remembered about the charges being thrown out of court, the mother said.

The judge hearing the case ruled against allowing statements from the boys taken by police because they failed to comply with provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The names of the youths cannot be published under the provisions of the Act.

"He's been beat up and harassed, even up to now," said the mother.

The family no longer lives in Cobourg.

The woman said she has suffered from depression over a number of years. She said she has a back problem that has recently put her on a disability pension. The single mother is bringing up not only the boy charged and cleared, but other younger children.

Her eldest son, now 15, recently returned home from a group home after serving a custody sentence for taking a joyride in a car that had been left running. Her son's "impulse control" is very low, the mother said, but, with counsellors, he is working on that. He is a very good reader and when school is out he'll be looking for a full-time summer job, she added.

As if things weren't hard enough with the fire in 2005 and trial in 2006, earlier this year, the mother received notifications of civil lawsuits naming her and her son and claiming millions of dollars.

"You can't get blood from a stone," she said as her eyes filled with tears.

She's been trying to write her own statements of defence against the statements of claim because Ontario's legal aid system only assists with criminal, not civil issues, she said she's been told. Each filing with the court costs hundreds of dollars and, as it is, she is struggling to keep a roof over her family's head and food on the table.

"I'm trying to do it on my own," she said. "But, it costs a fortune. One hundred and forty-four dollars per response (times four). I have to, or I get a judgment against me which I'd have to appeal, which is even more money.

"I've had depression for years. It's just getting worse. Getting things like these (lawsuits), it's just getting worse," the mother said.

A statement of claim from Affiliated FM Insurance Company is against the mother, her son, and the older co-accused in the fire and his parents. It claims $10.5-million in damages. The insurance company is trying to recoup the claim it paid to Horizon Plastics Company Ltd. for the fire damage sustained to its building as well as the loss of plastic lattice stored in an exterior compound at the plant in Northam Industrial Park, said solicitor John Lloyd of McCague Peacock Borlack McInnis & Lloyd LLP, a Toronto firm.

The insurance company alleges the fire and resulting damage is due, in part, to negligence by the parents in failing to properly supervise their children.

The Town of Cobourg and Delcom Management Inc. have also each filed cross-claims by the same law firm. The town owns the industrial park where Horizon Plastics is located. Delcom manages the industrial park.

A fourth cross-claim, for negligence, against the younger accused and his mother has also been filed by the other boy accused and cleared in the case and his family. It was filed by R.B. Cumine of McLean & Kerr LLP, who declined to be interviewed.

A call to the Town of Cobourg's director of legislative services, Ian Davey, confirmed the town has filed a lawsuit.

"It's all in the hands of the insurance company," Mr. Davey said. "The town's losses were covered by insurance at the industrial park and now it's up to the insurance to do what insurance companies do at this point."

The total claim by Delcom Management and the Town of Cobourg is for $2.5-million.

Mr. Lloyd, representing the insurance company of Affiliated FM Insurance Company who paid out Horizon Plastics' claim, plus the Town of Cobourg and Delcom, was contacted earlier this month. He said there had not been any response to their claim by the woman or her son.

Until a claim is started, there is no way to get information, he said. The legal process has time frames to preserve the rights of the parties who have sustained losses. After an insurance claim is paid out, there is a right to recovery against alleged wrongdoers, Mr. Lloyd said.

When told of the woman's circumstances and disability pension, Mr. Lloyd replied, "She wouldn't be forced to incur expenses unnecessarily (in filing a statement of defence)."

He said there was the possibility of seeking a judgment if she defaulted in her filing, but he said he would look into the matter further.

The next day, Mr. Lloyd said he had spoken to the woman and told her she didn't have to file her statement of defence, given her circumstances.

"We're not looking for her to incur expenses she could not afford," he said.

Normally, the individual would contact the lawyers issuing a claim, not the other way around, he said. In this case, Mr. Lloyd did just that.

When asked if he would be providing the woman with something in writing about their conversation, Mr. Lloyd said he would first talk to the lawyer in his office handling the file.

When the lawyer finished explaining, "I was crying," the woman said after receiving the telephone call from Mr. Lloyd. "He literally apologized."

Mr. Lloyd said if the woman had any questions or concerns to call him, she said.

"He told me not to waste my money on filing."

She said this takes a little weight off her shoulders -but she still wants to see something in writing - and the lawsuit issued by the co-accused and his parents remains in place, she said.

When Toronto lawyer Robin B. Cumine of McLean & Kerr LLP, was contacted by this newspaper, he was made aware of the woman's financial and medical circumstances. Mr. Cumine would only make one comment when asked to do an interview.

"I'm not prepared to discuss the case. I'm sorry," he said during a telephone conversation April 14.

Attempts to interview the family of the co-accused were, likewise, unsuccessful.

When contacted in person at his home, the father of the co-accused told this reporter, "I'm not interested in talking to you."

This newspaper was first contacted by a family friend concerned about the impact of the lawsuits on the woman of the younger boy charged with, and acquitted of, setting the fire. The woman's health has been steadily deteriorating and depression increasing, the friend said.

This reporter has seen the physical signs of stress the woman wears. "You can't get blood from a stone," the woman reiterated during an interview, as two of her children sat in the living room with her.

One was reading and the other playing with a cat. A television sit-com droned on in the background, but no one was laughing.

 ::)
« Last Edit: April 25, 2008, 02:19:54 pm by airbalancer »

Offline ArticSteve

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 27839
  • Carma: +310/-6812
    • View Profile
  • Cars: Hobby Car: 15 Mustang Vert, V6, manual, 3.55 lsd; 2024 MDX Aspec; 2022 F150 TREMOR lifted
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2008, 02:52:56 pm »
Her kid set a 10 million dollar fire; she's collecting disability benefits for a "bad back" caused by stress  ::)

Face it, these ppl have been losers long before this incident.  They are the dregs of society and drag the system down for all of us.

I say .....   BooHoo.  :'( :P

Offline dash

  • Auto Obsessed
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
  • Carma: +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2015 Acura RLX hybrid
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2008, 03:45:13 pm »
I agree with AB, but, that's just the way it works now, cover your @ss with lawyers, don't think on your own, never mind common sense. The lawyers will be the only one's benefitting from all this stupidity.

That family does not have a pot to pee in and most likely never will. As Artic said, that family has been living of society and that will never change.
"Why be quiet, and thought a fool, when you can speak up and remove all doubt"


Offline Ex-airbalancer

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 40151
  • Carma: +729/-1584
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2011 Silverado 1500 LTZ ext ended cab , 2013 Lexus RX-350 F Sport
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2008, 04:22:36 pm »
Her kid set a 10 million dollar fire; she's collecting disability benefits for a "bad back" caused by stress  ::)

Face it, these ppl have been losers long before this incident.  They are the dregs of society and drag the system down for all of us.

I say .....   BooHoo.  :'( :P
I mostly agree with what you wrote, but how much is this costing the taxpayer with court cost.
The lawyers are the only one making any money here.
The kids should have to do volunteer work the next ten years, getting off on technicality is just  ::)
By the way how does one get long term disability for stress, 4 kids and married almost 30 years, I should be able to get something :rofl2:

  
« Last Edit: April 25, 2008, 04:30:43 pm by airbalancer »

Offline ArticSteve

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 27839
  • Carma: +310/-6812
    • View Profile
  • Cars: Hobby Car: 15 Mustang Vert, V6, manual, 3.55 lsd; 2024 MDX Aspec; 2022 F150 TREMOR lifted
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2008, 07:23:34 pm »
I mostly agree with what you wrote, but how much is this costing the taxpayer with court cost.

The courts, the civil side of them, are taxpayer funded.  These filling costs and what have you are peanuts.  Might pay the hydro bill.

Corporations and big business; banks, insurance companies, etc.  have pretty well exclusive use of these institutions because they are constantly suing each other just as a matter of business.  So in this instance it's not an abuse of taxpayer dollars more than any other action.

The lawyers are the only one making any money here.

Get paid regardless.  Licence to print money and most of these guys paid peanuts for their degrees.  However, most of them pay 50% of what they make in income tax.

By the way how does one get long term disability for stress

Work for the Federal or Provincial government.  Many ppl in my wife's organization are off on "mental" stress leave. That's the gig to get into.  Unbreakable union, 5 weeks hoildays, pensions, sick days, drugs, dental, life insurance, can't get fired no matter how bad you suck at the job.  ::)

I gotta a feeling this lady might own her home and she's gonna lose it.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2008, 07:25:43 pm by articsteve »

Mitlov

  • Guest
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2008, 12:08:25 pm »
This is so stupid, you have bang your head
Sue first, then find out information

So you'd rather that a potential plaintiff know the intimate financial details of a potential defendant and their family before suing?  And how do you propose they do that? 

At least here in the United States, in order to get court-ordered discovery of an individual's assets, you need ongoing litigation, and depending on the information, you may need an existing judgment against the defendant.  I can't go into a bank and just ask how big your savings account is, or how much equity you have in your home, because I'm considering suing you.  I can't call up State Farm and ask if you have a homeowner's policy, what the terms of that policy are, and what the coverage is, just because I'm considering suing you.

And before you say "well they should have called her or visited her and asked"...if all a potential defendant had to do to avoid getting sued was to act impoverished for one home visit, or swear to plaintiff's attorney on their mother's grave that they were broke, how many potential defendants would do that?  98%?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2008, 12:11:41 pm by Mitlov »

Offline safristi

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 46229
  • Carma: +471/-416
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: since the beginning of Saf timeLOTUS ELAN,STANDARD... 10, MG midget, MGB (2),Mazda Millennia,Hyundai Veloster and 1997 Ford Ranger 2014 Subaru Forester XT
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2008, 12:13:33 pm »
..sounds like a plan................the Law always goes after deep pockets FIRST... :shuffle:....too many "ambulance chasers" & not enough commonnsensical Law IMHO..............
Time is to stop everything happening at once

Offline Cord

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Carma: +104/-115
    • View Profile
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2008, 12:48:51 pm »
What's the big deal? Trying to recover some of the millions lost because some idiot kid set fire to somebody's business? Sounds like a perfectly reasonable use of civil law to me. God help us if the way to avoid a lawsuit is just to say I can't afford it.
"If we can just believe something then we don't have to really think for ourselves, do we?" Paul Haggis

baumer00

  • Guest
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2008, 12:51:26 pm »
the worst act I ever had to perform since joining the legal profession was performing debtor examinations as an articling student.  Forcing people to show up and lay out for me every cent that they are worth, which for the most part was an extremely negative amount.  It all goes on the record too, it's very sad.

Transcript from one of my examinations:
Me: do you have any jewelery of value?
Woman: I do the lord's work, (points to a wooden cross she was wearing) this is all I need.
Me: let the record show Ms. X pointed to a wooden cross, Ma'am do you have anything of actual value?
Woman: this is all I need
Me: for the record, there is no jewelery of any value

That's one of the many reasons I will never do any sort of litigation work again

Offline Cord

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Carma: +104/-115
    • View Profile
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2008, 01:22:42 pm »
I wonder what sort of lord's work she was being sued for?

Offline initial_D

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 13022
  • Carma: +30/-50
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2008, 02:02:06 pm »
Her kid set a 10 million dollar fire; she's collecting disability benefits for a "bad back" caused by stress  ::)

Face it, these ppl have been losers long before this incident.  They are the dregs of society and drag the system down for all of us.

I say .....   BooHoo.  :'( :P
I mostly agree with what you wrote, but how much is this costing the taxpayer with court cost.
The lawyers are the only one making any money here.
The kids should have to do volunteer work the next ten years, getting off on technicality is just  ::)
By the way how does one get long term disability for stress, 4 kids and married almost 30 years, I should be able to get something :rofl2:

  

4 kids? gotten SOME already ...  :)

Mitlov

  • Guest
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2008, 02:20:12 pm »
Another consideration: claims only stick around for a few years, thanks to the statute of limitations (exact length depends on the jurisdiction and the claim).  Judgments stick around for a LONG TIME.  Let's say that that 16-year-old who started the fire has no income now.  But ten years from now, he's 26 years old and he lands a $100,000 per year computer consulting job.  Can the company sue him then to garnish his wages?  Nope.  The statute has run and their claim is dead and gone.  Could they then start enforcing a judgment that they obtained shortly after he set that multi-million-dollar fire?  Most likely.

Now the company's lawyer seems a bit more prudent and a bit less heartless, no?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2008, 02:21:57 pm by Mitlov »

Offline The Mighty Duck

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 7861
  • Carma: +34/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • f*** that duck
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2010 MINI Cooper S | Past: 1999 Honda Civic, 2009 Honda Fit
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2008, 02:42:20 pm »
Only if you think it fair that someone pay for a mistake they made as a kid for the rest of their lives...

Offline initial_D

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 13022
  • Carma: +30/-50
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2008, 02:48:39 pm »
The insurance company is out $10M, they might never recover that money back from the whoever is responsible for the loss, but they sure will do whatever they can to make them pay one way or another.

Offline Cord

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 5095
  • Carma: +104/-115
    • View Profile
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2008, 03:49:54 pm »
Only if you think it fair that someone pay for a mistake they made as a kid for the rest of their lives...

Locking your keys in your car in your car is a mistake. Setting a business on fire and causing $10M in damage is something else. I'm sick of reading about  these little bastards making "mistakes" and "poor choices."

If you caught a 12 year old setting your house on fire would you just say, "It's alright kid, my insurance company will pay me and that will be the end of it."
« Last Edit: April 26, 2008, 03:55:38 pm by Cord »

Mitlov

  • Guest
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2008, 04:34:09 pm »
Only if you think it fair that someone pay for a mistake they made as a kid for the rest of their lives...

EDIT:  Quoted the wrong post initially.  Now corrected.

Let's say that the 12 year old and 15 year old who deliberately set a fire in someone else's building were trust-funders who inherited a $100,000,000 estate.  Let's say that the business was a mom-and-pop operation.  Would you still say then that the kids are too young to be held financially responsible for their intentional act?

I don't think the problem here is that a 12-year-old and a 15-year-old are too young to be held financially responsible for an intentional act.  I think the problem is that people look at business entities, particularly "corporations," PARTICULARLY insurance companies, are unsympathetic plaintiffs.  People--and it's most people, not just folks here--often are inclined to tell an insurance company to "take a hike" when they lose a lot of money, when people would not tell an individual plaintiff the same thing.  I think the gut reaction is understandable.  But I think that it's a miserable way to decide what legal claims are valid and what are not.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2008, 06:55:35 pm by Mitlov »

Offline The Mighty Duck

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 7861
  • Carma: +34/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • f*** that duck
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2010 MINI Cooper S | Past: 1999 Honda Civic, 2009 Honda Fit
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2008, 05:28:15 pm »
Locking your keys in your car in your car is a mistake. Setting a business on fire and causing $10M in damage is something else. I'm sick of reading about  these little bastards making "mistakes" and "poor choices."


???  So the only people that can be productive members of society are people that have spotless records?  Nobody in the entire world has the ability to learn from their errors and contribute to society?  The entire prison system should be scrapped, since they foolishly focus on "rehabilitation" and not "punishment"?

People do stupid things.  That's a fact of life.  But because a ten year old did something stupid does not mean s/he should pay for it for the rest of their lives.  Everyone is entitled to a second chance.  I find it incredibly foolish to damn a person for seventy years based on one ill-considered action they made as a kid.

Take the case of Frank Abignale, who defrauded millions of dollars by forging cheques.  I'm not arguing he "made a mistake", but since then he's helped to catch who knows how many criminals, designed security measures used by banks worldwide, and made millions of dollars, thus contributing to government revenue.  If society had written him off, we'd have lost out on all those very substantial benefits.

Quote
If you caught a 12 year old setting your house on fire would you just say, "It's alright kid, my insurance company will pay me and that will be the end of it."

Total straw man argument: nowhere did I claim people should not be held accountable for their actions.  I simply said that that punishment should not be so severe as to follow them for the rest of their lives.  If I had a kid set my house on fire, I would punish him.  But I would not go to him on his 50th birthday ad say "You still owe me $100 000 for burning my house down 38 years ago."

Let's say that the 12 year old and 15 year old who deliberately set a fire in someone else's building were trust-funders who inherited a $100,000,000 estate.  Let's say that the business was a mom-and-pop operation.  Would you still say then that the kids are too young to be held financially responsible for their intentional act?

I don't think the problem here is that a 12-year-old and a 15-year-old are too young to be held financially responsible for an intentional act.  I think the problem is that people look at business entities, particularly "corporations," PARTICULARLY insurance companies, are unsympathetic plaintiffs.  People--and it's most people, not just folks here--often are inclined to tell an insurance company to "take a hike" when they lose a lot of money, when people would not tell an individual plaintiff the same thing.  I think the gut reaction is understandable.  But I think that it's a miserable way to decide what legal claims are valid and what are not.

Completely irrelevent - the business has been compensated.  It's the insurance company that's suing the family.  And insurance companies exist to assume risk - their business model is to take payments and, if something goes sour, to pay money out.  You can't compare them to anyone else, because they're the only business that enters willingly into a contract saying "if something goes wrong, we will lose a lot a money".

I refer you to above for the rest: if the kids could afford to repay the damages, they should be held accountable.  But I am not convinced that they should have a $10 million debt hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives...

Wolfe

  • Guest
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2008, 05:57:08 pm »
Locking your keys in your car in your car is a mistake. Setting a business on fire and causing $10M in damage is something else. I'm sick of reading about  these little bastards making "mistakes" and "poor choices."


???  So the only people that can be productive members of society are people that have spotless records?  Nobody in the entire world has the ability to learn from their errors and contribute to society?  The entire prison system should be scrapped, since they foolishly focus on "rehabilitation" and not "punishment"?

People do stupid things.  That's a fact of life.  But because a ten year old did something stupid does not mean s/he should pay for it for the rest of their lives.  Everyone is entitled to a second chance.  I find it incredibly foolish to damn a person for seventy years based on one ill-considered action they made as a kid.

 ::) They're not going to execute the kid.

Take the case of Frank Abignale, who defrauded millions of dollars by forging cheques.  I'm not arguing he "made a mistake", but since then he's helped to catch who knows how many criminals, designed security measures used by banks worldwide, and made millions of dollars, thus contributing to government revenue.  If society had written him off, we'd have lost out on all those very substantial benefits.

Abignale's "contribution" to society sounds very similar to what you've quoted from Mitlov:

Let's say that the 12 year old and 15 year old who deliberately set a fire in someone else's building were trust-funders who inherited a $100,000,000 estate.  Let's say that the business was a mom-and-pop operation.  Would you still say then that the kids are too young to be held financially responsible for their intentional act?

I don't think the problem here is that a 12-year-old and a 15-year-old are too young to be held financially responsible for an intentional act.  I think the problem is that people look at business entities, particularly "corporations," PARTICULARLY insurance companies, are unsympathetic plaintiffs.  People--and it's most people, not just folks here--often are inclined to tell an insurance company to "take a hike" when they lose a lot of money, when people would not tell an individual plaintiff the same thing.  I think the gut reaction is understandable.  But I think that it's a miserable way to decide what legal claims are valid and what are not.

Completely irrelevent - the business has been compensated.  It's the insurance company that's suing the family.  And insurance companies exist to assume risk - their business model is to take payments and, if something goes sour, to pay money out.  You can't compare them to anyone else, because they're the only business that enters willingly into a contract saying "if something goes wrong, we will lose a lot a money".

You don't seem to understand the concept of insurance very well. Insurance companies aren't just ATMs where you put money in sometimes and then take money out at other times.

The insurance industry exists to transfer risk, not to eliminate it (that's not possible). In return for their premium the insurance company takes on the risk of the insured and any legal claim that the insured may have as a result of the insured loss. The insurance policy exists to make the insured whole if they experience a loss. That loss is still very real and once the insurance company pays the insured they have every right to seek compensation. Now they may not be able to get compensation (as they won't in this particular case) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.   

And all of that is only half of their business model.

I refer you to above for the rest: if the kids could afford to repay the damages, they should be held accountable.  But I am not convinced that they should have a $10 million debt hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives...

I wish someone would give me $10 million for nothing.


Mitlov

  • Guest
Re: Lawyers & insurance companies, are they stupid or what
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2008, 06:54:00 pm »
You don't seem to understand the concept of insurance very well. Insurance companies aren't just ATMs where you put money in sometimes and then take money out at other times.

The insurance industry exists to transfer risk, not to eliminate it (that's not possible). In return for their premium the insurance company takes on the risk of the insured and any legal claim that the insured may have as a result of the insured loss. The insurance policy exists to make the insured whole if they experience a loss. That loss is still very real and once the insurance company pays the insured they have every right to seek compensation. Now they may not be able to get compensation (as they won't in this particular case) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.   

And all of that is only half of their business model.

:iagree: 

Insurance companies, as a matter of business, sue on behalf of their insured when the loss at issue is caused by another's negligence or intentional act.  It's called a subrogation claim, and it's a routine part of how insurance companies do business.  If your car is wrecked in an accident that's not your fault, the insurance company pays you cash, and then sues the negligent party to recoup it.  Right now, premiums pay for the risk that harm may exist where no one did anything wrongful, or that where a tort occurred, the subrogation action won't produce results (i.e., you're T-boned by an uninsured driver who is killed in the accident and has no net worth, as opposed to being T-Boned by an insured driver or a wealthy uninsured or self-insured driver).  If premiums alone were the source of all insurance payouts, though premiums would have to be far, far, far higher for the companies to stay in business.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2008, 07:15:22 pm by Mitlov »