5 ms·

> The public policy motivation for liability insurance is to protect the lawsuit route. A friend of mine had the same experience from the other side. She ran

> The public policy motivation for liability insurance is to protect the lawsuit route. A friend of mine had the same experience from the other side. She ran into some guy's car, apologised for her mistake and told him not to worry because she was fully covered. The first sign that something wasn't right was when a summons to appear at the magistrate's court appeared in the letter box. She asked the insurance company what was going on and they said "just send the paper work to us and don't worry, we'll take care of it". Then she got a knock on the door from a pair of court-appointed officers who were there to discuss her financial situation and assist her in arranging a payment plan to pay off her fine. Her insurance company had not sent a representative to the trial, so the magistrate found in favour of the only party that had turned up. After some screaming on the phone, the insurance company paid the full amount of the judgement. Any judge worth his salt will understand the global implications (courts clogged with litigants, inability of poor people to use cars) if insurance companies stonewall when their client is at fault, whatever the odd lot who comment in HN think. The judge should hit the other party. Bear in mind that this is a matter of public interest and romwell has not signed an NDA. S/He should name that insurance company!

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The judge should hit the other party. What judge? The whole scenario is around a party who was not willing to go to court. There's no judge involved.
- explodingman 5y ago
  The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. A person cannot ignore a court summons, not even in Texas. The judge will know that the other driver's insurance will ultimately pay, so he can punish the insurance company for its intransigence by putting a heavy financial penalty onto the other driver.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. Yes, that's how you formally sue in an accident. It's not the hack you think it is, though, the insurance company defends the lawsuit, that's part of the insurance agreement. It's also specifically what OP was unwilling to do which resulted in the insurance company not paying, and why any “the judge should...” is missing the point. If there was even the slightest expectation there would be a judge, the insurance company would have likely paid without batting an eye.
    - explodingman 5y ago
      > If there was even the slightest expectation there would be a judge, Okay, I'm confused. My anecdote, which comes from Australia, indicates a 100% expectation of a judge. Are you saying that in Texas, a $US6K matter is likely to be considered too vexatious/trivial to receive a trial? Or is it actually possible to decline a lawsuit in the USA? This is an "explain it to me like I'm five years old" moment. I really don't know what you guys are talking about.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >Okay, I'm confused. My anecdote, which comes from Australia, indicates a 100% expectation of a judge. Are you saying that in Texas, a $US6K matter is likely to be considered too vexatious/trivial to receive a trial? His point is that the OP (ie. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29719047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29719047) is refusing to sue, so there's no case to bring before a court. Everything else is irrelevant. Even if you'll obviously win, but you don't sue, it's not the state's job to file lawsuits for you.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Lawyers can’t represent clients in some small claims courts. And often just filing is enough for them to do the math and just pay out. Sure, it’s not fair, but that’s why we have courts in the first place.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The judge should hit the other party. What judge? The whole scenario is around a party who was not willing to go to court. There's no judge involved.

explodingman 5y ago
The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. A person cannot ignore a court summons, not even in Texas. The judge will know that the other driver's insurance will ultimately pay, so he can punish the insurance company for its intransigence by putting a heavy financial penalty onto the other driver.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The appropriate course is to sue the other driver directly and ignore the insurance company. Yes, that's how you formally sue in an accident. It's not the hack you think it is, though, the insurance company defends the lawsuit, that's part of the insurance agreement. It's also specifically what OP was unwilling to do which resulted in the insurance company not paying, and why any “the judge should...” is missing the point. If there was even the slightest expectation there would be a judge, the insurance company would have likely paid without batting an eye.
  - explodingman 5y ago
    > If there was even the slightest expectation there would be a judge, Okay, I'm confused. My anecdote, which comes from Australia, indicates a 100% expectation of a judge. Are you saying that in Texas, a $US6K matter is likely to be considered too vexatious/trivial to receive a trial? Or is it actually possible to decline a lawsuit in the USA? This is an "explain it to me like I'm five years old" moment. I really don't know what you guys are talking about.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >Okay, I'm confused. My anecdote, which comes from Australia, indicates a 100% expectation of a judge. Are you saying that in Texas, a $US6K matter is likely to be considered too vexatious/trivial to receive a trial? His point is that the OP (ie. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29719047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29719047) is refusing to sue, so there's no case to bring before a court. Everything else is irrelevant. Even if you'll obviously win, but you don't sue, it's not the state's job to file lawsuits for you.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Lawyers can’t represent clients in some small claims courts. And often just filing is enough for them to do the math and just pay out. Sure, it’s not fair, but that’s why we have courts in the first place.