In the civil law of Louisiana it is an exception pleaded by a defendant on the basis that the law provides no remedy for the injury the plaintiff alleges. In short it appears that Auto Club felt they did not need to pay anything additional and the higher court disagreed.
“”‘Enclosed is our check for the Unconditional Tender of $23,000.00 in settlement of your Underinsured Motorist claim.
“‘Please call me to discuss the final settlement of your claim.'””
to me this phrase of these 2 lines, means that it appeared that his own insured was going to pay him more. this is how i would look at it! nothing in this writing states that accepting this $23k is the final payment. it says call me to finalize your claim, which probably meant more money. (this is why lawyers get the fancy words to play on each other and get us confused.)
I agree that some additional context here would have been useful to interested readers, i.e. are there issues of waiver and estoppel or their equivalent. Brevity may be the soul of wit but not necessarily of education.
I am assuming that the high court merely stated that the UM claim was not closed and the insured had the right to claim additional damages. No where does the ruling seem to address the amount of the claimant’s additional damages or the validity of his claim for additional damages. The author certainly could have included some explanatory language on the “exception to prescription” stuff, since it legalese I’ve never seen here in Florida.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Can anyone explain this to me in plain English? That French Law stuff always reminds me why we don’t do business in Louisiana.
In the civil law of Louisiana it is an exception pleaded by a defendant on the basis that the law provides no remedy for the injury the plaintiff alleges. In short it appears that Auto Club felt they did not need to pay anything additional and the higher court disagreed.
“”‘Enclosed is our check for the Unconditional Tender of $23,000.00 in settlement of your Underinsured Motorist claim.
“‘Please call me to discuss the final settlement of your claim.'””
to me this phrase of these 2 lines, means that it appeared that his own insured was going to pay him more. this is how i would look at it! nothing in this writing states that accepting this $23k is the final payment. it says call me to finalize your claim, which probably meant more money. (this is why lawyers get the fancy words to play on each other and get us confused.)
I agree that some additional context here would have been useful to interested readers, i.e. are there issues of waiver and estoppel or their equivalent. Brevity may be the soul of wit but not necessarily of education.
I am assuming that the high court merely stated that the UM claim was not closed and the insured had the right to claim additional damages. No where does the ruling seem to address the amount of the claimant’s additional damages or the validity of his claim for additional damages. The author certainly could have included some explanatory language on the “exception to prescription” stuff, since it legalese I’ve never seen here in Florida.