Auto insurance question

[peanut]

If one has full coverage on a vehicle, is uninsured motorist coverage neccessary or is it included in the full coverage policy?

 

[Zombie]

not necessary IMO

the common uninsured motorist is essentially an extra bit of medical insurance - not uninsured property

for example uninsured motorists would cover health costs if you were taken to the hospital and they had no insurance - but if you did not have full coverage your vehicle would not be covered.

If you had full coverage but no uninsured motorist - your car would be fixed (after you pay your deductible) but your insurance would not necessarily cover out of pocket medical expenses.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Of course... that depends on the policy.

In other words, actually read the policies before choosing one and signing it...

 

[inactive]

If one has full coverage on a vehicle, is uninsured motorist coverage neccessary or is it included in the full coverage policy?

There is no such thing as Full Coverage. That term generally means comprehensive and collision coverage, but it has no legal meaning. Comprehensive, Collision, UM-UIM, glass, rental, no fault medical payments, residual debt, towing, roadside assistance, etc. are all additional coverages purchased beyond your basic required liability coverage. "Full Coverage" could mean any combination of those your agent may have sold you.

Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist UM/UIM covers your bodily injury claim you would be entitled to receive if you were involved in a loss that was not your fault, and the tortfeasor is not insured or was under-insured. If you have health insurance, it would cover your medical bills (subject to the terms of that policy) but it would not cover the general (i.e. pain & suffering, loss of consortium) damages another party would owe you; however, UM-UIM does pay you for that.

There is a phenomenon in Oklahoma known as "double dipping" wherein one can legal claim payment for the same loss from multiple coverages. In many cases that is illegal (taking full payment from two carriers for the same property damage, for example), but in OK and some other states there has been legal precedent set that has established double dipping as practice.

See here: http://travislawoffice.com/Websites...Content/912035/UM Update for 2011 for OAJ.pdf (page 28-29), or here: http://voices.yahoo.com/uninsured-underinsured-motorist-coverage-medical-7974268.html?cat=17 for a brief primer

Now, UM is not a bad coverage to have, but you need to weigh the (relatively high) premium to the benefit. If you do not have health insurance, it may be a wise decision. If you are excited by the prospect of truly profiting from an insurance claim (see: double dipping), you may also like UM. For those with health insurance and wish to carry some risk (such as not receiving pain & suffering / general damages) in event of an uninsured driver's loss, it may be wise to waive UM-UIM coverage and save on premium.

As noted, UM-UIM is for bodily injury only. It provides no property damage coverage. You must have collision coverage for that, and it is subject to the same deductible regardless of fault or if the other party carrier has insurance (odd coverages or endorsements such as "vanishing deductibles" excluded from the generalization).

 

[SlugSlinger]

I was in an accident where the at fault driver only had a $25k policy. My medical bills were more than that. And my health insurance would not pay until they received a legal document stating the at fault insurance would not pay. The at fault insurance dragged their feet to the day of trial then said they would pay the policy limits. We declined and went through the trial and judgment was in my favor for more than the policy limit that I did collect due to additional circumstances that I will not go into.

I would recommend UI coverage whether you have health insurance or not.

 

[inactive]

We declined and went through the trial and judgment was in my favor for more than the policy limit that I did collect due to additional circumstances that I will not go into.

So did the at fault party (the insured) pay the balance above their policy limit, or did the other carrier pony up more than they were obligated (by their contract with their insured) to pay?

Not asking for the circumstance, just curious.

 

[SlugSlinger]

The carrier was persuaded to pay the entire judgement. And I might add, was substantially more that the policy limit.

 

[inactive]

The carrier was persuaded to pay the entire judgement. And I might add, was substantially more that the policy limit.

Huh. That's pretty impressive. I'm surprised they paid more that they (as their contract states) owed. Usually they leave their insured hung out to dry.

 

[SlugSlinger]

Huh. That's pretty impressive. I'm surprised they paid more that they (as their contract states) owed. Usually they leave their insured hung out to dry.

It was a long drawn out mess where the at fault insurance treated me poorly at best. This came back to bite them where the sun doesn't shine!