the question is whether it's worthwhile to pursue the individual.
The insurance company cannot leave its insured exposed to additional litigation and walk away by paying the policy limits. (This gets into a whole discussion of insurance law,
but just take my word for it)
Ultimately, the claimant/plaintiff's lawyer must agree
to accept the available insurance in exchange for a release
of the insured and dismissal of the action.
If he's unwilling to do so, either because he wants to pursue the insured to judgment and thinks there may be assets out there or just feels like it, he can.
The carrier will have tendered the limits and been agreeable
to paying them all along, or pay them into court, etc.
This avoids the prospect of an eventual claim against the carrier for the excess of a judgment over the policy limits. (This is the area of "bad faith" law.)
Because the policy includes a duty to defend, the carrier must continue defending the insured to the end, because it cannot discharge its defense responsibility by tendering the limits.
The bottom line is that it is a foolish plaintiff's lawyer
who continues the litigation with a no asset defendant.
He is wasting time and money to go after a "turnip."
There is a lesson here for anyone with assets, though.
MAKE SURE AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE INSURANCE PROTECTION.
If not, you may be the person whose assets are really exposed when a catastrophic injury has occurred and
the plaintiff's lawyer sets his eyes on your assets.
Also, in the area of motor vehicle insurance, your
UM/underinsured limits can't be higher than your liability limits.
And The UM coverages protect YOU!
EOS. (End of sermon:-) |
