Another Liability thing to be concerned about:
05-10-2010 | 07:03 AM
#26
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Anytown
RE: Another Liability thing to be concerned about:
Care to elaborate or was that something you just pulled out ofyour ............................. hat? The (public) record of claims the AMA has paid would seem to disagree with your statement.
05-11-2010 | 06:01 PM
#29
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: sheridan,
IN
RE: Another Liability thing to be concerned about:
ORIGINAL: rolsen12
Three that I know ,and the AMA did not come into thje picture at all,
Three that I know ,and the AMA did not come into thje picture at all,
05-12-2010 | 03:07 PM
#33
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: Another Liability thing to be concerned about:
ORIGINAL: skipperwayne
That's only if you're looking for the real answer. I sometimes wonder about that.
That's only if you're looking for the real answer. I sometimes wonder about that.
Nothing meaningful to be gained if they did. The question itself suggests a misconception of what AMA liability insurance coverage (or any other liability insurance) is for. AMA has no obligation to a party injured by an insured member. Their obligation is to the insured, to protect him from paying out-of-pocket for claims that injured party suffered due to negligence of insured member, and seeks compensation from the insured for that injury. No liability insurer pays any claim until the legal liability of their insured is established. The onus is on the claimant to prove his injury is the fault of the insured. The insurance provider is obligated to defend their insured against that claim (assumption that it is a covered risk), and pay on behalf of their insured if the defense fails. In some (many) instances they may waive that defense and pay off the claimant if they deem the cost of legal defense weighted by an assessment of the odds of prevailing in court would probably end up costing them more, but that is their business decision to make. They fulfill their obligation to their insured either by proving their client is not liable or paying if he is. They never owe the injured party anything, and they (including AMA) never pay just because they are nice guys.
I know of several cases where AMA did not pay because their insured was not adjudged to be at fault for claimant's injury. Haven't heard of any instance where their insured (again, for a covered risk - read the policy exclusions) was left holding the bag after judgment by a civil court awarded damages to claimant.
05-12-2010 | 08:31 PM
#34
RE: Another Liability thing to be concerned about:
ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
Like most insurers, AMA never publicly discloses any info pertaining to specific cases, so little chance of getting a direct answer there.
Nothing meaningful to be gained if they did. The question itself suggests a misconception of what AMA liability insurance coverage (or any other liability insurance) is for. AMA has no obligation to a party injured by an insured member. Their obligation is to the insured, to protect him from paying out-of-pocket for claims that injured party suffered due to negligence of insured member, and seeks compensation from the insured for that injury. No liability insurer pays any claim until the legal liability of their insured is established. The onus is on the claimant to prove his injury is the fault of the insured. The insurance provider is obligated to defend their insured against that claim (assumption that it is a covered risk), and pay on behalf of their insured if the defense fails. In some (many) instances they may waive that defense and pay off the claimant if they deem the cost of legal defense weighted by an assessment of the odds of prevailing in court would probably end up costing them more, but that is their business decision to make. They fulfill their obligation to their insured either by proving their client is not liable or paying if he is. They never owe the injured party anything, and they (including AMA) never pay just because they are nice guys.
I know of several cases where AMA did not pay because their insured was not adjudged to be at fault for claimant's injury. Haven't heard of any instance where their insured (again, for a covered risk - read the policy exclusions) was left holding the bag after judgment by a civil court awarded damages to claimant.
ORIGINAL: skipperwayne
That's only if you're looking for the real answer. I sometimes wonder about that.
That's only if you're looking for the real answer. I sometimes wonder about that.
Nothing meaningful to be gained if they did. The question itself suggests a misconception of what AMA liability insurance coverage (or any other liability insurance) is for. AMA has no obligation to a party injured by an insured member. Their obligation is to the insured, to protect him from paying out-of-pocket for claims that injured party suffered due to negligence of insured member, and seeks compensation from the insured for that injury. No liability insurer pays any claim until the legal liability of their insured is established. The onus is on the claimant to prove his injury is the fault of the insured. The insurance provider is obligated to defend their insured against that claim (assumption that it is a covered risk), and pay on behalf of their insured if the defense fails. In some (many) instances they may waive that defense and pay off the claimant if they deem the cost of legal defense weighted by an assessment of the odds of prevailing in court would probably end up costing them more, but that is their business decision to make. They fulfill their obligation to their insured either by proving their client is not liable or paying if he is. They never owe the injured party anything, and they (including AMA) never pay just because they are nice guys.
I know of several cases where AMA did not pay because their insured was not adjudged to be at fault for claimant's injury. Haven't heard of any instance where their insured (again, for a covered risk - read the policy exclusions) was left holding the bag after judgment by a civil court awarded damages to claimant.
05-18-2010 | 07:58 PM
#35
My Feedback: (4)
RE: Another Liability thing to be concerned about:
ORIGINAL: rolsen12
Three that I know ,and the AMA did not come into thje picture at all,
Three that I know ,and the AMA did not come into thje picture at all,
If your three situations involved members that have personal liability coverage, it is fairly certain that their personal insurance paid first, and the AMA insurance was still there as an umbrella of higher liability coverage that was not needed in these cases.
Without providing some sort of details or backup, your statement is pretty meaingless.
In any case, your statement that AMA insurance is not worth the paper it is written on is simply not true. Do some more research.
