Speaking of guns and horses
 

On Monday, November 18, 2013 8:56:37 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:

It takes a brave, brave man to hunt and shoot squirrels and rabbits.


But it takes a total fool to shoot a stump.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:10:20 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:


$35K??
Man, we had that requirement when I was in high school back in the '60s.
It's been at least 100K minimum for a long time now but everyone carries
at least one million PLPD.

Most states have moved to an uninsured motorist model where you buy
the insurance to make yourself whole and the insurance company
subrogates the claim when they can.
They understand the state actually being able to make people carry
adequate insurance is spotty at best.
We have illegals here who don't have a driver's license and are
legally barred from even getting one. Any insurance on that vehicle
would be void anyway since most if not all policies only apply when a
legal driver is driving..

California even issues drivers licenses to illegals! Stated they would
then have insurance. And there is plenty of Tort liability to require you
to carry enough insurance to cover your assets. I do not know how many
states have gone to the no fault model, but California has not.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 November 2013 21:30:37 UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:46:03 -0600, Califbill

wrote:



iBoaterer wrote:



Here insurance proof is electronic. No insurance, no tag, don't even

have to show a paper copy. Insurance lapses, tag is deemed invalid, LEO

runs the tag, finds out that uninsured and therefore tag is invalid, go

to jail, car towed.



Not in California. Not any room in jail anyway. Besides, insurance seems

to be on a less than yearly payment cycle and tags are yearly.



Yeah Kevin really seems to believe the cops spend all their day trying

to catch uninsured motorists.



OTOH if the tags were issued by the insurance company, they would

simply send a minimum wage goon over to repossess the tag if you let

your insurance lapse. It would still belong to them.



Actually they should impound the car. Who needs insurance? Not the poor.

Legally they are supposed to have it to drive, but with no assets and no

jail room, as well as who is going to take care of the family while in

jail. They do not need it as they have no assets to protect. My wife was

in an accident yesterday. Stop light and a lady in a rental Chevy Tahoe

hit the car in back driving that car in to the wife's. Wiped out the

plastic bumper. I asked the insurance guy who came by to get an estimate

of the damage, about whose insurance actually covered the damage, if the

first car had none. He said both our and the guy behinds uninsured

motorist coverage would be the payee. Luckily my wife only had a small

sore spot on her head where it hit the headrest. The insurance situation

is a major problem. If wife hit someone who is uninsured, they collect in

to the millions. I carry a $2,000,000 umbrella policy as well as car

insurance. The uninsured hits my wife and does the same injuries, and my

insurance has to cover the loss. No pain and suffering, lost wages, etc.

make it so you can only collect as much money as you carry insurance for.

Minimum insurance in this state is $35,000 liability and about $15k

property damage.


$35K??
Man, we had that requirement when I was in high school back in the '60s.
It's been at least 100K minimum for a long time now but everyone carries
at least one million PLPD.

You are ignorant if you carry a million PLPD. First, how much is does your
courts normally award? And much better and cheaper, at least in the
states, to carry $300k liability and buy an umbrella policy for a couple
million. $300k is what State Farm requires on the car to issue an umbrella
policy. The umbrella covers you in a lot more areas than car insurance,
and I think I pay $275 a year for the $2 million policy.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:08:40 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:10:20 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:


$35K??
Man, we had that requirement when I was in high school back in the '60s.
It's been at least 100K minimum for a long time now but everyone carries
at least one million PLPD.

Most states have moved to an uninsured motorist model where you buy
the insurance to make yourself whole and the insurance company
subrogates the claim when they can.
They understand the state actually being able to make people carry
adequate insurance is spotty at best.
We have illegals here who don't have a driver's license and are
legally barred from even getting one. Any insurance on that vehicle
would be void anyway since most if not all policies only apply when a
legal driver is driving..

California even issues drivers licenses to illegals! Stated they would
then have insurance. And there is plenty of Tort liability to require you
to carry enough insurance to cover your assets. I do not know how many
states have gone to the no fault model, but California has not.

Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance, that is
all you could get.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:59 -0600, Califbill
wrote:


Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance, that is
all you could get.

That is what I said. Insurance is to protect rich people. Someone with
limited resources won't attract the attention of a tort lawyer. There
is no money in suing an illegal alien with 6 kids and a 20 year old
Chevy

So, make it so you can only sue for the amount of insurance you, yourself,
carry. Who **** off those tort ambulance chasers.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/20/2013 1:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:59 -0600, Califbill
wrote:


Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance, that is
all you could get.

That is what I said. Insurance is to protect rich people. Someone with
limited resources won't attract the attention of a tort lawyer. There
is no money in suing an illegal alien with 6 kids and a 20 year old
Chevy

So, make it so you can only sue for the amount of insurance you, yourself,
carry. Who **** off those tort ambulance chasers.


I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that's how it works here in CT.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/20/2013 1:39 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/20/2013 1:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:59 -0600, Califbill
wrote:


Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident
here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance,
that is
all you could get.

That is what I said. Insurance is to protect rich people. Someone with
limited resources won't attract the attention of a tort lawyer. There
is no money in suing an illegal alien with 6 kids and a 20 year old
Chevy

So, make it so you can only sue for the amount of insurance you,
yourself,
carry. Who **** off those tort ambulance chasers.


I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that's how it works here in CT.

They call it "no fault".. If you let your insurance run out, they notify
Motor Vehicle, and I believe your local cops that your insurance is
expired, so your registration is void...

Speaking of guns and horses
 

KC wrote:
On 11/20/2013 1:39 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/20/2013 1:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:59 -0600, Califbill
wrote:


Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident
here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance,
that is
all you could get.

That is what I said. Insurance is to protect rich people. Someone with
limited resources won't attract the attention of a tort lawyer. There
is no money in suing an illegal alien with 6 kids and a 20 year old
Chevy

So, make it so you can only sue for the amount of insurance you,
yourself,
carry. Who **** off those tort ambulance chasers.


I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that's how it works here in CT.

They call it "no fault".. If you let your insurance run out, they notify
Motor Vehicle, and I believe your local cops that your insurance is
expired, so your registration is void...

Seems as if you can also sue in Connecticut.
http://www.all-about-car-accidents.c...ss-connecticut

http://www.ltke.com/CM/Custom/Lou-Ru...ident-Case.asp

I see on the first link, that minimum insurance is $10k per person killed
or injured up to $40,000 total for an accident and $10,000 in property
damage. That PD will not even cover most car damage, let alone
replacement. And if you have assets, the tort attorney is going to go
after them. And Google Connecticut accident lawsuit and you get lots of
attorneys.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

KC wrote:
On 11/20/2013 1:39 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/20/2013 1:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:59 -0600, Califbill
wrote:


Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident
here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance,
that is
all you could get.

That is what I said. Insurance is to protect rich people. Someone with
limited resources won't attract the attention of a tort lawyer. There
is no money in suing an illegal alien with 6 kids and a 20 year old
Chevy

So, make it so you can only sue for the amount of insurance you,
yourself,
carry. Who **** off those tort ambulance chasers.


I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that's how it works here in CT.

They call it "no fault".. If you let your insurance run out, they notify
Motor Vehicle, and I believe your local cops that your insurance is
expired, so your registration is void...

But I bet the victim can sue for pain and suffering and loss of wages, on
top of the insurance.

Speaking of guns and horses
 

On 11/20/2013 5:04 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 11/20/2013 1:39 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/20/2013 1:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:59 -0600, Califbill
wrote:


Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident
here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance,
that is
all you could get.

That is what I said. Insurance is to protect rich people. Someone with
limited resources won't attract the attention of a tort lawyer. There
is no money in suing an illegal alien with 6 kids and a 20 year old
Chevy

So, make it so you can only sue for the amount of insurance you,
yourself,
carry. Who **** off those tort ambulance chasers.


I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that's how it works here in CT.

They call it "no fault".. If you let your insurance run out, they notify
Motor Vehicle, and I believe your local cops that your insurance is
expired, so your registration is void...

Seems as if you can also sue in Connecticut.
http://www.all-about-car-accidents.c...ss-connecticut

http://www.ltke.com/CM/Custom/Lou-Ru...ident-Case.asp

I see on the first link, that minimum insurance is $10k per person killed
or injured up to $40,000 total for an accident and $10,000 in property
damage. That PD will not even cover most car damage, let alone
replacement. And if you have assets, the tort attorney is going to go
after them. And Google Connecticut accident lawsuit and you get lots of
attorneys.


Yeah, and then like the scumbags I am evicting, you sue them and they go
to court, you come out with 50 bucks a week, for life....and you have to
keep chasing them for that...