ORIGINAL: littlecrankshaf
Phaedrus-MMVI
One reason could possibly be confirmed if you were to contact BasinBum ( I think you may know him as Richard D.) and ask him to relay the particulars of an incident where coverage was reportedly, by Richard himself, limited to only $25,000 for an accident between two members that he knows personally and report back hear what you find out.
I think we all would be interested in the results of that incident. If you don't really care don't ask and don't tell.
No need for me to contact BasinBum, or anyone else. You see, I happen to know the particulars of that case quite well. I assume you are speaking of the case of the injury at the Sepulveda basin in September of 2004. I can tell you that you do not have the correct information nor do you have the faintest idea what transpired, how, or why. I can also tell you that BasinBum (who I know through emails, etc.) does not have the facts straight if that is what he told you (which I doubt it is).
How do know I this?
Well, you see, I was the expert witness for the defense in this case. I have reviewed all the deposition transcripts (16 of them), medical reports, interrogatories, motions for discover, and other related documents (this is a stack about 4 feet tall).
I gave an 6-hour long deposition in the case, and I provided testimony in court in front of the judge and jury. I met with the defendant, completed a site walk of the accident scene, met with the lawyers and other experts involved in the case (human factors expert among them), and spent a good deal of time preparing for my deposition and court testimony.
I feel fairly confident when I say that neither BasinBum, nor you, or in fact anyone else on this forum, have a more intimate knowledge of this case than I do. BTW, he does not know either of the parties involved in the case.
So, if you are basing your conclusion that the AMA policy is not effective on what you think you know about this case, then I suggest you find a different example. In fact, your example is that the injured person DID get coverage from AMA, by way of the medical policy. He then attempted to recover a very significant claim against the defendant up to the limits of the defendant's home owner's and AMA policies by suing him. The plaintiff was unsuccessful and recovered nothing in the case. It was neither the AMA nor the defendant’s homeowner’s company that did this. It was the 12 people good and true on the jury who came to the conclusion.
Had the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, then both the home owner's and AMA policies would have been on the hook proportionate to the size of the award and their relative coverages (as I detailed above).
So when I say that I am comfortable that the AMA policy will be there and that it works as advertised, I say it from a position of having actual knowledge of the particulars of this, and other cases. It is not based on what I was told by some guy who knows a buddy who read on the internet that he heard about.........