On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:18:53 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:31:14 -0600, Leon wrote:

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

Maybe the answer depends on whether the insured lives in a
"No-Fault" state or not. In Indiana, they are not afraid to sue.
That strikes me as quite odd. What would be the purpose of
insurance if the insurance company were to simply turn around and
sue you for collecting? Are you quite certain of what you claim
Bill? Got any links to this kind of behavior by insurance
companies in Indianna?

To me, it seems like the entity paying off on the homeowner's policy
could sue the entity holding the auto-liability policy. Obviously,
if
they are the same company, then the there is no issue.

I can tell you for based upon a little bit of experience, that in a
"non-no-fault" state--in an accident, the insurance company of a
negligent party will pay for all of the losses (or whatever the
companies "settle" upon).

Typically with no fault, insurance companies will pay for damages
and look into collecting from the other guy, whether it be the other
guy or his insurance.

That's a case of "you're insured but the other guy (should) is still
liable for damage". This is the reason that "no fault" tends to
increase the cost of insurance. The law hasn't improved anything but
added another layer of insurance.

Not at all. No Fault only deals with personal injury (liability insurance).

In NY, yes, but there is no reason it can't cover all insurance.

It is a disaster unto itself because states like NY have made it such a
nightmare to naviage the laws, but that's a different matter entirely.

Yes, there is no reason to have double-coverage. All it does is make
the lawyers rich.

No
one seems to realize that no fault is not what Bill was even talking about.
This was not a no fault case. It seems to me that most people understand
less about no fault than even I do...

Sure. Not contesting that point.

Similarly, insurance companies will pay off on "collision" coverage
and then try to collect from the other guy under his "liability"

WRONG! Under his collision insurance. Liability and collision are two
different things.

WRONG! Collision covers damage to your car. Liability covers damage
to other's property. When you get into an accident, not your fault,
your insurance company (if they're worth anything) will pay out,
immediately, under your collision coverage and then recoup the money
from the other company, under the other operator's LIABILITY coverage.

coverage. I had that happen but the other guy wasn't to be collected
upon (DUI, switched plates, no insurance, attempt to leave the scene,
on parole - all around all-American guy).

Right from your mouth - "no insurance..."

sigh They then *TRIED* to collect from the other moron. Since he
was such a moron, he had no insurance and no possibility of collecting
anything. If he had even my deductible, it would have been reimbursed
to me.