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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

On 11/20/13, 5:32 PM, KC wrote:

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...

$50 a week is more than you are making now.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

KC wrote:
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...

Bull****. If you have no assets outside the pittance of insurance the
state requires, there will be no lawsuit. No lawyer will take the case,
unless you pay by the hour. The only people who will get sued are those
with enough assets to pay the judgement.

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.