Reading in between the lines, did National Casualty refuse coverage because there was no collision under the uninsured-motorist? Did they also refuse because they had no obligation under employers liability law?
so, i am confused as well… if the other trucker ran the stop sign, how come that truck driver’s company not making the settlement? is it because there was not actual accident (collision) by the trucks themselves? i can see why the trucker that swerved his company should not have paid anything even under UM coverage. they should be going after the other company especially if there is a witness and proof that he had run the stop sign.
think about this – would that not be the same as swerving to miss a deer! it’s a loss of control incident.
so is the judge redefining the insurance coverage?
so clearly according to the article, the other driver did not stop – so why did he not go after the other driver and check w/his insurance? afterall, he caused the accident. um coverage would only be legal, if the other party did not have insurance. so the fact the judge told that company to pay under that coverage w/o the other driver’s insurance checked, he’s changing the implied coverage.
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.
Reading in between the lines, did National Casualty refuse coverage because there was no collision under the uninsured-motorist? Did they also refuse because they had no obligation under employers liability law?
so, i am confused as well… if the other trucker ran the stop sign, how come that truck driver’s company not making the settlement? is it because there was not actual accident (collision) by the trucks themselves? i can see why the trucker that swerved his company should not have paid anything even under UM coverage. they should be going after the other company especially if there is a witness and proof that he had run the stop sign.
think about this – would that not be the same as swerving to miss a deer! it’s a loss of control incident.
so is the judge redefining the insurance coverage?
Haven’t handled Florida UM in awhile, but I don’t believe contact is required for a UM claim…
however, the carrier may have had evidence of other issues, such as the driver falling asleep.
It is curious to see this described as denying coverage; wish we had better info on the actual facts.
Can be found at:
http://www.floridainjuryattorneyblog.com/2009/06/broward_county_truck_accident.html
so clearly according to the article, the other driver did not stop – so why did he not go after the other driver and check w/his insurance? afterall, he caused the accident. um coverage would only be legal, if the other party did not have insurance. so the fact the judge told that company to pay under that coverage w/o the other driver’s insurance checked, he’s changing the implied coverage.
It is the coolest site, keep so!