Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting llworking
    View Post
    It's probably time to stop responding to Brian57. He absolutely does not want to understand how home owner's insurance works and doesn't care to learn.
    What I understand is that insurance companies typically refuse to pay, or pay what is fair and just, unless an attorney forces them to pay. Therefore I would believe a personal injury lawyer far before an agent of an insurance co.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    What I understand is that insurance companies typically refuse to pay, or pay what is fair and just, unless an attorney forces them to pay. Therefore I would believe a personal injury lawyer far before an agent of an insurance co.
    An attorney cannot force an insurance company to pay anything. Only a court or the stateís insurance board can force them to pay anything.



    Itís hilarious you would accept the word of a pi lawyer (aka ambulance chaser) over an uninvolved insurance person.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    An attorney cannot force an insurance company to pay anything. Only a court or the state’s insurance board can force them to pay anything.



    It’s hilarious you would accept the word of a pi lawyer (aka ambulance chaser) over an uninvolved insurance person.
    Semantics!

    You can believe the pro-prosecution and anti-societal opinions commonly expressed here at face value. I take it all with a grain of salt.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    Semantics!

    You can believe the pro-prosecution and anti-societal opinions commonly expressed here at face value. I take it all with a grain of salt.
    No, it’s not semantics. Not only can a lawyer not force an insurance company to pay because they simply don’t have that power, the insurance company isn’t even a party to the suit so there will be no judgment against the insurance company.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    No, itís not semantics. Not only can a lawyer not force an insurance company to pay because they simply donít have that power, the insurance company isnít even a party to the suit so there will be no judgment against the insurance company.
    Oh really? Insurance companies do not have attorneys that defend their interests?

    How do you even write this stuff? Because you have five guys in your corner to back you up?

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,474

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    Oh really? Insurance companies do not have attorneys that defend their interests?

    How do you even write this stuff? Because you have five guys in your corner to back you up?
    One cannot sue an insurance company in this kind of instance. One has to sue the person who was negligent and caused the damage. Now, the insurance company will, if they feel that the alleged claim falls under the correct perimeters, provide their insured with an attorney to defend the case or negotiate the case, whichever is appropriate, but if there is a judgement issued, it will be issued against the insured, not against the insurance company. That isn't semantics, its simply facts.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting llworking
    View Post
    One cannot sue an insurance company in this kind of instance. One has to sue the person who was negligent and caused the damage. Now, the insurance company will, if they feel that the alleged claim falls under the correct perimeters, provide their insured with an attorney to defend the case or negotiate the case, whichever is appropriate, but if there is a judgement issued, it will be issued against the insured, not against the insurance company. That isn't semantics, its simply facts.
    "Semantics" was in response to me saying that a person needs an attorney to make an insurance co pay what is fair and just. Of course an attorney cannot "force" anyone do anything, but they can persuade an insurance company.

    Hence semantics.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    Oh really? Insurance companies do not have attorneys that defend their interests?

    How do you even write this stuff? Because you have five guys in your corner to back you up?
    No. They have attorneys that represent the insured. It ultimately can benefit the insurance company but it is the insureds attorney. Do you really believe the attorney standing next to the defendant could be there if he was not representing the actual defendant?

    Here’s some “show me” for you. This is from the California jury instructions dealing with premises liability.


    1000. Premises Liability—Essential Factual Elements
    [Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed because of the way [name of defendant] managed [his/her/its] property. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
    1. That [name of defendant] [owned/leased/occupied/controlled] the property;
    2. That [name of defendant] was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
    3. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
    4. That [name of defendant]’s negligence was a substantial factor in
    causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
    take note of #2 and #4. Notice the word: negligence. Notice that the instructions state the negligence is what allows liability to be placed upon the defendant. That means no negligence, no liability.

    That proves negligence is required and it proves you are wrong.

    Also notice that in this excerpt from sources and authority (describes from where the instructions were derived) it is clearly stated that premises liability is based on negligence.



    • “Since Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561], the liability of landowners for injuries to people on their property has been governed by general negligence principles.” (Pineda v. Ennabe (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1407 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 206].)
    • “Premises liability is a form of negligence based on the holding in Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, and is described as follows: The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619 [264 Cal.Rptr. 756].

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,474

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting Brian57
    View Post
    "Semantics" was in response to me saying that a person needs an attorney to make an insurance co pay what is fair and just. Of course an attorney cannot "force" anyone do anything, but they can persuade an insurance company.

    Hence semantics.
    Once again, an attorney cannot make an insurance company pay anything at all. An attorney can only get a judgment against an insured. If an insurance company still declines coverage for an incident, then the insured has to pay out of their own pocket.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    236

    Default Re: Help

    Quote Quoting llworking
    View Post
    Once again, an attorney cannot make an insurance company pay anything at all. An attorney can only get a judgment against an insured. If an insurance company still declines coverage for an incident, then the insured has to pay out of their own pocket.
    Very profound post! Please, teach me more...I'm in such need.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Auto Insurance: Insurance Company is Taking the Word of its Insured Over Mine, Denying Claim
    By phildman in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-10-2013, 09:48 AM
  2. Home Insurance: Errors and Omissions by Agent on Homeowners Insurance Wind Claim
    By Jorge Z in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-19-2011, 06:23 PM
  3. Home Insurance: Who Should Be a Named Insured on Homeowners Policy
    By jaytee in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-20-2010, 08:21 AM
  4. Home Insurance: Homeowners Insurance vs Rental Property Insurance in Texas
    By lillinh in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-28-2009, 10:10 AM
  5. Home Insurance: Problem with presenting a homeowners claim
    By uwishtoo in forum Insurance Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-11-2006, 11:47 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources