When Should You Receive Treatment for Injuries Resulting from an Accident?

 

 

Is it Better to get Treatment Before or After Your Personal Injury Settlement?

Transcript:

Hi, I’m Jared Richards. I’m one of the partners at Clear Counsel Law Group. One of our readers has asked a question of: Besides the initial doctor evaluation, when should I receive treatment for my injuries? Before or after I get my settlement? There are a couple of things to think about when answering this question. The short answer is get treatment now. Now it can get more complicated than that, but here are a couple things to look at.

First of all, the purpose other settlement is to make sure that your medical bills are taken care of, that any other expenses that you’re out of pocket for are taken care of, and that to the extent that you’ve experienced pain or suffering or, quite frankly, the scales of justice are unequal, that the other side pays money to try to equalize the scales of justice.

Now with that in mind, it’s difficult to convince the defendant, specifically an insurance company, to pay you for things that haven’t happened yet. You may have the initial doctor visit and he may say that you’re injured, but if you don’t seek treatment for that, the initial reaction of the insurance company, and quite frankly, often a jury, is going to be that you’re not really injured, you’re not really all that hurt. Sitting at home in silence in pain is never a good choice because it’s bad for the case because it’s more difficult to settle for what the case is really worth. It’s also bad for you because there’s no reason for you to sit at home and be in pain.

 

treatment, personal injury lawyer, Las Vegas, Nevada

 

Now the object of treatment is twofold. The first and primary goal is to get you better. You need to see the doctors that are going to treat you will and that are going to get you the care that you really, truly deserve and need. There is a secondary reason to get treatment, and that’s evidence-based. Because we need to document what your injuries actually were and what you had to do to get better. Juries and insurance adjusters find that relevant, and it is relevant. Make sure when you get injured to go see a doctor. Go see them that day. That’s the best. Then listen to your doctor and do the treatment that your doctors recommend. Do all the treatment that your doctors recommend. At the point where you feel like you don’t need the treatment anymore, just don’t by yourself decide you don’t need any more treatment. Go to your doctor and think about it. Because sometimes even though you’re feeling better, it’s still beneficial to go a little bit longer to make sure that you don’t relapse, to make sure that your muscles, your tendons, everything else are strengthened so that you don’t have further injury.

The short answer is make sure that you go and get your treatment before the settlement. Now there are sometimes where you don’t have insurance and it’s difficult to find anybody who will give you treatment until you have the settlement. Most of the time, there are doctors out there who will still treat you even though you don’t have the money yet. Because they care and because they know that it’s a difficult predicament for you. There are times when you do need to wait until after the settlement to get the treatment because you need to have the money in order to do the treatment, but usually you can find doctors who are willing to treat you now and then wait to get paid later. Again, the short answer is don’t wait to get treatment. Go get it now. Thanks, and if you have any more questions, give us a call.

 

What if You are Injured and Cannot Afford an Attorney? A Video about Contingency Fees

 

 

A Contingency Fee Arrangement is a Good Option if You Cannot Afford an Attorney

Transcript:

Jared: Hi, I’m Jared Richards. I’m one of the partners here at Clear Counsel Law Group. One of our readers has asked: What are my options if I’m injured by somebody else’s negligence but I can’t afford to hire an attorney? You have pretty good options, especially when it comes to personal injury. Now you’ll find that most personal injury attorneys are willing to and often exclusively do this, that they’re willing to take cases on what they call a contingency fee. Now a contingency fee means that essentially the attorney, he is willing to represent you, he’s willing to pursue a claim for you in exchange for a percentage of whatever it is that he collects.

Now when you hire an attorney and you pay them hourly or you pay them a flat fee, you are accepting the risk of the attorney’s fees because let’s say the attorney fails. Let’s say that you don’t actually make any sort of recovery. You don’t make any money on the claim. If you’ve paid the attorney directly, then you’ve accepted the risk. Most attorneys are willing to work hourly. Now in most cases, though, individuals that get hurt don’t have the kind of money that they would need to hire an attorney hourly, so that’s why personal injury attorneys generally are willing to do it the other way around.

 

contingency fee, lawyer, Las Vegas, Nevada

 

Now when you hire an attorney on contingency you have to understand that they’re going to get their percentage whether they settle quickly or whether this goes all the way through trial. The percentages will often change. It will often increase depending on how into the litigation you go. The reason that they do that, the reason that they take a large percentage, often a third if the case settles even outside of court, is because the attorney at that point is taking on the risk of the attorney’s fees. Because if the attorney doesn’t get anything, then he walks away having earned nothing but having done the work.

When we’re talking about hourly or contingency, it all depends on who wants to take the risk of the attorney’s work if the attorney were to fail. Does the client wanted to do that or does the client want the attorney to do that? In most personal injury attorney matters, most personal injury attorneys will take a contingency fee. Looks like Brian has a question.

 

Brian: What’s a fair percentage for a contingency fee to be?

 

Jared: Fair? I would say that the industry standard tends to be a third if the case settles outside of litigation, and then 40% if it goes into litigation. Some people do different tiers. Some people would do a third if it settles outside, 40% if it settles after the lawsuit is filed, and then 45% if it goes all the way to the trial, and then 50% if it goes on appeal. Everybody is different, but I would say along those standards are industry standards. We tend to do a third if it settles before we have to file a lawsuit and 40% if we have to file a lawsuit. Anyway, if you have any more questions, please pick up the phone, give us a call, or send us an email, and we’re happy to answer them.

Will Homeowner’s Insurance Cover the Medical Bills of a Home Maintenance Injury?

 

How will homeowner’s insurance help with a home maintenance injury?

Transcript:

Jared Richards: Hi, my name is Jared Richards. I’m one of the attorneys at Clear Counsel Law Group. One of our readers has asked, “I was injured at my friend’s home while I was performing home maintenance for him. Can I make a claim against his Homeowner’s Insurance to cover my medical bills?”

The answer is yes. Something to think about, and something to be aware of is that each insurance contract is different. Each contract specifies what it is that they cover, and what it is that they don’t cover. Most contracts differentiate between people who are at a location for social reason or people that are there for professional reasons. If you’re performing maintenance and you’re getting paid for it, then you probably … Quite frankly, you might fall under either category, but you could probably qualify for, “I was there working, providing maintenance,” category.

 

home maintenance, Las Vegas, Injury lawyer

 

We actually had a case a little while ago where somebody was injured in another person’s garage, and just the peculiarities of that contract, they were able to get a recovery because they were getting paid for that maintenance. The key here is you need to look at the contract. You should call an attorney, and you should consult with them, read the contract, and see what category of person you are. Whether you are there for social reasons, there for professional reasons, and then what you’re recover under that contract would be.

It looks like Brian has a question.

 

Brian: Would bartering be the same as being paid? “I will fix your house because you watched my dog last week,” for example.

 

Jared Richards: Maybe. It’s really a tit for tat. You have received compensation, and now you’re performing services for compensation, then maybe. It’s one of those things, we’d have to get into the contract, and think about, and maybe do a little bit of case law research to make a decision on that.

Anyway, if you have an issue similar to this give us a call, and we’ll see if we can help you out. Thanks.

May You Still Sue if You Did not Receive Treatment for the Injury Soon after the Accident?

 

 

Is a lawsuit still tenable if your injury was not treated soon after the accident?

Transcript:

Jared: Hi. I’m Jared Richards of Clear Counsel Law Group. One of our readers has asked, “Is it possible to make a claim for injuries that were not evaluated after the injury?” The answer is, yes, it’s possible. The general principle you look at is one, did the accident cause your injury? How can we prove that? If the accident caused the injury, then the accident caused the injury, that’s fine.

Then, we go to how do we prove it? That’s where it becomes a little more difficult. Unfortunately, the truth is if you get hurt and you stay at home and you suffer, it is more difficult for your attorney to prove that you were hurt. That’s why it’s always beneficial to go to a doctor immediately and get evaluated. Part of it because that’s just what injured people do and part of it is an evidentiary issue. You need to preserve the evidence.

If however, you realize that six months after the accident, a year after the accident you are getting new symptoms that really can only be attributed to the accident or if you suffered in silence for a long time. The answer is, yes you can make a claim. It may be more difficult to get a jury or an insurance adjuster to believe that that injury is related to the accident.

 

Injury, personal injury, las vegas, nevada

 

This is where, if you do this one, most attorneys are going to want this to be a fairly serious injury. Just because of the difficulty of proving it. Two, you need to make sure that you are working with your doctors and that you are communicating with your doctors about what you think the cause is, so that your doctors could make an intelligent decision as to what they think the cause is, because ultimately you are going to be relying on your doctors.

The other thing that you are going to want to make sure that you do is if you’ve been suffering in silence, meaning that you haven’t sought medical treatment. Make sure that if you told any friends, family, colleagues, employers about your injury, your pain. Make sure that you make a list of those, so your attorney can talk to those people, because sometimes those could actually prove that you were hurt, but you just didn’t seek treatment. It looks like Brian has a question.

 

Brian: Was there any value in documenting your injury in like a diary that’s dated over time?

 

Jared: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Again, part of what you need to do is when we go to a jury we need to prove to the jury that you were hurt. Although, it could seem somewhat self serving. It does help document on such and such day, you had troubles taking a shower by yourself. You use to go jogging, but ever since this date you weren’t able to jog, because of the pain. It’s actually a really good to document specifically what we’d call activities of daily living or duties under duress. Just things that you have to do, that you can’t do anymore or you can’t do very well. A journal is a very good way to document that.

May You Still Sue if You Signed a Release Waiver?

 

How Signing a Waiver Will not Foreclose Your Option to Sue

Transcript:

Jared: Hi, I’m Jared Richards. I’m one of the partners at Clear Counsel Law Group. One of our readers has asked, “If I sign a release form concerning possible injuries, is there anything I can do if I get hurt?” The answer is sometimes. A lot of times companies and doctors, for example, will make you sign waivers acknowledge that there are certain possibilities of danger. Now different courts handle these different ways. Quite frankly, different judges handle these differently. In general, just because you acknowledge that there’s a possibility that you might be injured doesn’t necessarily give the person who injures you license to act negligently. They still have a level of duty and care that they have to perform.

Now the fact that you’ve sign a waiver for potential injuries is never helpful, but what you need to do is take that waiver to your attorney, talk with him, and ask that attorney if this is something that you can get around. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn’t. It’s a very case-specific thing, but the general principle is was the injury that you received foreseeable at the time that you signed that waiver. Is it something that that waiver really was meant to address, and is the injury the result of somebody else’s negligence that happened after you signed the waiver? If so, then there’s a chance you might be able to get around it.

 

waiver, personal injury, las vegas, nevada

 

Brian: A quick question. Is it different if an establishment posts a sign saying they’re not responsible for an injury? Is that different than signing a waiver?

Jared: No, I don’t know that a unilateral posting of a sign saying they’re not responsible for a injury actually gets them out of anything. I would be pretty skeptical actually on that.

This all goes down to issues of fair play and notice. For example, if there’s a sign that says wet floor, and it was noticeable and you saw it, then maybe the person’s not responsible for that injury. If there’s just a big sign on the establishment saying I’m not responsible for any injury, I’m not sure that I buy that. I’m not sure that saves them from anything.

Who to Sue in a Car Accident Caused by Road Conditions

 

Knowing Who to Sue in a Car Accident Caused by Bad Road Conditions

Transcript:

Hi. I’m Jared Richards, one of the partners at Clear Counsel Law Group. One of our readers has asked us who do we file claims against if there’s an accident due to road conditions that are not weather related? By this I assume that they’re referring to potholes or some obstacle in the road. The answer is you file a claim against the person who’s responsible. If for example there’s an obstacle in the road and we know who put it there, then that’s who we would sue.

 

Bad road in USA, pothole, personal injury, Las Vegas

 

If it’s an actual street condition, the street is poor or there’s a stop sign that’s missing, we would contact the city government or the county government, whoever it is that maintains the road, controls the road. Now something to be aware of, if you are suing a city government or a county government, anything that is the state level government, often there is a cap on how much you can recover. For example in Clark County, Nevada or all of Nevada, there is a cap of $100,000 per claim. That’s something to be aware of when you’re making a claim and selecting who it is that we want to make a claim against. So anyway, the short answer is try to figure out who’s at fault and that’s who you file a claim against.

Accident, car accident, Las Vegas, Metro, non-injury, investigation

Las Vegas Metro to Resume Investigating Non-Injury Accidents in January

In March of 2015, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department announced it would stop responding to car accidents where neither party was injured. This was quite an interesting change since Metro had been reporting to all car accidents for nearly forty years. Budget and staffing concerns were cited as the reason for the cut back, and citizens were left puzzled. Many clients raised concerns to our office: What happens if I don’t feel injured right away but later realize I am? What if the person deserves a ticket? What if someone who hits me denies s/he were at fault and my insurance will not cover me?

These are just a small sample of the dozens of concerns that were raised. Personally, the concern that stuck me the most was a question of safety. A female client expressed concern to me that if she got in an accident after dark, she would not feel comfortable exchanging insurance with a complete stranger, leaving her vulnerable on the side of the road. This resonated with me. Particularly of concern was when a person who causes an accident and might face someone with “road rage,” which is quite rampant in Nevada. All of these concerns appeared likely to cause other problems for the citizens that the police may not have anticipated.

 

Accidents, car accident, las vegas, metro, investigation

 

I certainly can understand this non-response policy working well in smaller, slower paced cities but not in the Las Vegas Valley. Our city continually ranks high in the number of accidents, making a decreased police presence on the streets all the more concerning. If the thought of getting a ticket for causing a minor accident is not looming over people’s heads, drivers will probably take more risks and end up causing more accidents in the long run.

On the other hand, of course, we all want the police to be protecting the streets from murders, robbers, and kidnappers and not spending hours taking statements from victims of a paint-smudging minor collisions. I am sympathetic the the resource concerns of Metro.

 

Metro changes course with non-injury car accidents

As it turns out, public safety concerns outweighed this ill-fated policy. Starting January 2016, the policy will be officially reversed. Metro will again respond to any accident where they are called and prepare a report for the parties.

Clearly, there are other ways to save officers time in responding to accidents, specifically by reducing the number of accidents! It is clear that Las Vegas has too many, and the reasons are many and complicated. The roads need to be safer for our citizens, but getting there will not be easy. Perhaps if tickets were more expensive and more common, drivers would be more cautious and more motivated to be careful. There are many options for reducing the number of accidents on our roadways. Intersection cameras might be expensive at first, but are likely to pay off in the long run. Or perhaps, harsher penalties for those who drive under the influence. This, combined with the presence of ride shares like Uber and Lyft may help keep Las Vegas safer by making it easier for folks to get a ride home. Lowering speed limits, raising the age to start driving, adjusting the patterns at high-accident intersections, mandatory insurance increases with each accident, or even public ad campaigns reminding people how getting a little bit ahead on the roadway really does not save time in the long run.

These are just a few options for making our roads safer. However, all public safety measures come with a cost and it’s often hard to get the citizens on board for raising the funds needed, i.e. taxes…. But for now, it is a step in the right direction to put police back on the scene of even minor accidents, so these small inconveniences do not end up as big hassles later on.

Will a Person on a Car Title Be Held Liable in a Car Accident?

 

 

Transcript:

Hi, I’m Jared Richards. I’m one of the partners here at Clear Counsel Law Group. One of our readers has recently asked whether the person who’s on title with him on a car is going to be liable or responsible if he is at fault for an accident. The answer is maybe, but we have another video on this and please check it out. The quick answer is that person is going to be responsible if the responsible is just lending somebody a car or having somebody as co-title on the car. It’s not going to mean that they are instantly responsible. Now there are generally 3 methods that we go about to show that somebody else who isn’t driving is responsible.

20100321 Car Accident 004

Method one is that the person who owns the vehicle is the employer or in law sometimes we say the master of the person who is driving. Meaning the owner instructed the driver to drive and while the driver was doing what the owner said, they got in an accident. Now generally this applies in an employee or employer relationship. It certainly doesn’t happen every time. If somebody is on co-title with you, it’s generally not the case. The next thing that we look at is what we call negligent entrustment. Negligence entrustment is when you own a vehicle and you give it to somebody that you know is not fit to drive.

Now there is a lot of case law on negligence entrustment and there tends to be an exclusion. You want to talk to your attorney and your attorney will have to do probably some briefing for the court on this, but there is an issue of whether negligence entrustment can even happen on somebody who is on co-title, who is on title of the car because they have a right to drive. You’re not letting them drive it. They have a right to drive. There is a law on that and some area for argument. The last is the person who is on co-title with you. If they are a member of your household, if they’re family and a member of your household, then the answer is yes they probably actually will be liable then that has to do with the family responsibility act.

Most of the time no, the person is not going to be responsible, but there are times specifically if they’re your employer, if you’re running an errand at their specific request behest or if you are a family member living with them, then they might be responsible. Thanks and will see you in another video.

 

Child Negligence: When a Hug Can Go Terribly Wrong

In 2011, Jennifer Connell attended the birthday party of her eight-year-old nephew Sean Tarala.1)Read more about the facts here. Ms. Connell broke her wrist and sued, but she lost. The break of her wrist was the boy’s fault and not hers.

If a person unintentionally hurts another person, we usually expect the person who caused the harm to be responsible, even if the harm is the result of an enthusiastic hug.  But what if the person causing the harm in the process of giving a hug is just an excited eight-year-old child?  Should the child’s parent or guardian be required to pay?  And how does a person’s homeowners insurance play into the equation?

It may be helpful to discuss some scenarios that have some similarities with each other when analyzing these questions, the first of which is nearly identical to Ms. Connell’s case.  They are as follows:

 

3 Child Negligence Scenarios

Scenario one: 8 year-old Sean Imahugger, while playing in the street near his parents’ home where he lives, sees his aunt arrive.  He runs to greet her because she has come for his birthday party.  He then enthusiastically jumps into the air to hug her while shouting “Auntie I love you!” They both fall to the ground, but auntie breaks her wrist in the fall. Sean did not consider that they might fall prior to the hug. She incurs medical bills and, as a result of the incident, her wrist is forever weakened, and it is now less flexible, which makes her daily routine at work typing on her computer more difficult.

Scenario two: Four year little-league veteran Jeff ImaGoodAllAmericanKid, who is also 8 years old, was playing baseball in the narrow street near his parents’ home where he lives. While at bat, he sees neighbor 3 year-old Frankie IopenFrontDoors wandering on the sidewalk across the street.  Jeff thinks2)if he considers the possibility at all that it is very unlikely that his baseball would hit Frankie. Sadly, the probabilities are in neither boys’ favor on this day. Jeff makes contact with the ball with his bat and the ball hits Frankie in the head, which knocks him unconscious and causes him to fall and break his arm. He incurs medical bills, reverts to needing diapers again, suffers nightmares and has a daily fear that he will be hit by falling objects when he is outside.

Scenario three: Without his parents’ knowledge, 8 year-old adventurer Dennis ImaMenace comes home from school and takes the keys to his parents’ old car from the junk drawer and drives the car on a joy-ride down the street. He knows about driving because he drives ATVs on his grandpa’s farm, and his Dad lets him sit on Dad’s lap to help steer the old car while Dad drives on the dirt roads. Unfortunately, Dennis does not make the turn of the end of his street and crashes into a neighbor’s home. Sadly, the neighbor’s mixed-breed dog was killed in the incident. The property damage totaled $25,000, including the cost of a replacement dog with all shots from the local pound.Max: Learning how to drive

 

The Child’s Negligence Caused Harm in All Three Scenarios, Now What?

In all three scenarios, a child did something that resulted in unintended actions or consequences, which are commonly referred to as accidents3)Or a ‘tort’ in legalese.  In each, the results were costly to someone else.  Someone must pay the price because the child certainly cannot, at least not in full.  The persons who will most likely pay the cost of these damages will either be the persons hurt or the child’s parent or guardian (I am just going to say “parent” from here on), whether or not the parents have some form of insurance.

Negligent acts are unintentional4)Although this term is unnecessary, added for clarity accidents for which the law states that someone should be financially responsible. The above scenarios involve actions that would most likely be negligent acts on the part of the child; however, children cannot be sued directly and children do not usually have funds or insurance to pay claims or judgments.

In most states, there are laws that make a parent legally responsible for the negligent acts of their children.  However, the parent must have failed in their duties to supervise their children in the standard and customary manner for the area in order for the parent to be responsible for the negligent acts of the children.  This is called negligent supervision. Laws regarding negligent supervision by a parent is sometimes more specific when automobiles are involved.

An analysis of whether a parent should be liable for negligent supervision usually requires knowledge about the type of activity that the child in which the job was engaged, analysis of the parent prior knowledge of that child, including their abilities and personality, and knowledge about the parent such as where they were when the accident occurred versus where s/he should have been.

 

Now that We Understand Child Negligence, Let Us Look at Those Scenarios Once More

In scenario one, Sean Imahugger was probably negligent in his overenthusiastic hug, but should his parents be responsible for the injuries to Sean’s aunt? Sean’s parent was probably home because it was his birthday. Unless Sean had a history of being too physically aggressive, including with his affection, his parent likely had no prior notice that he would run up to and hug Sean’s aunt with such enthusiasm that they would both fall over.  Thus, it is not unreasonable that a jury found that Sean’s parents should not be responsible for the injuries to Sean’s aunt.

The result in scenario one is probably the least fair because Sean’s aunt certainly did not cause for own injuries, yet she is the person least likely among the persons harmed in these scenarios to be compensated for her damages. She is reasonable for wanting someone else to pay for her injuries5)If you disagree, put yourself in her shoes. It is a difficult situation.  Unfortunately, these are one of those accidents for which the law does not provide a remedy for the person who is harmed.

In scenario two, we know a little more about what Jeff ImaGoodAllAmericanKid’s parent likely knows about Jeff and the location of the incident.  His parent had to sign him up and take him to little league baseball for four years.  Thus, Jeff’s parents should know that Jeff has some abilities in hitting a baseball.  We also know that Jeff and his parents live on a narrow street and that baseballs are hard objects that can cause damage to other people and property.  This type of claim may be a toss-up in front of a jury, who may find that the parents should have ensured that Jeff played baseball on the nearby field instead of on his neighborhood street.

In scenario three, the parents likely knew that Dennis ImaMenace drove ATV’s on grandpa’s farm, and Dad was teaching Dennis to drive the old car.  The keys were apparently kept in a location were Dennis could find and get them.  Did his parents know he was adventurous on other occasions that would suggest that he would do something like this? The results of this type of a claim would be less likely in favor of the parents of Dennis; however, a jury may still find that these facts are not sufficient to show that one of his parents should have known that he would drive the car on his own.

 

Homeowner’s Insurance and Child Negligence

If one of the harmed persons in the above scenarios expected payment from the parent for their damages, and the parent purchased homeowner’s insurance, the next questions are whether the insurance would defend the claim and pay if the parent is found liable.

In most homeowner’s insurance policies, if a family member who is living at the home causes another person to be injured, the homeowners insurance will provide coverage and defend against such claims.  Insurance policies have many exclusions and fine print, including against car accidents and intentional acts that cause harm.  In all of the above three scenarios, a homeowner’s insurance would be expected to defend against claims made arising out of the scenarios.  The homeowner’s insurance would only be expected to pay the harmed parties if a jury or judge decides against the homeowner or the insurance chooses to settle to avoid going to trial.

It is important to note that every situation is unique as even small facts can turn a claim/case from bad to good or vice versa. The value of a good personal injury attorney is that s/he will be able to assess the facts of a specific scenario to determine the likelihood of recovery.

Footnotes   [ + ]

1. Read more about the facts here.
2. if he considers the possibility at all
3. Or a ‘tort’ in legalese
4. Although this term is unnecessary, added for clarity
5. If you disagree, put yourself in her shoes. It is a difficult situation

What is an Appropriate Amount of Car Insurance to Carry?

 

How Much Car Insurance Coverage Would You Recommend?

Transcript:

Hi, I’m Jared Richards. Hi, I’m Jared Richards. I’m one of the partners here at Clear Counsel Law Group. Now, one of our readers has recently asked us how much insurance coverage he should have on his car. It’s an interesting question because there are many different types of insurance coverage you can have on your car. There’s insurance coverage that will cover the property damage that you cause if you’re at fault. There’s insurance coverage that will cover property damage done to your car even if it’s your fault. There is other coverage that will cover your car if it’s somebody else’s fault and they don’t have enough or they don’t have any insurance. That’s for the property damage. Let’s talk about injury.

Now, it’s the same idea. There is liability insurance that’s going to cover you if you hurt somebody else. There’s uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage that covers you if somebody else hurts you. Then there’s MedPay. MedPay simply pays for medical bills. Now I want to talk about how much coverage we have in liability. The answer, I think, is having as much as you can afford. Now, it’s tempting sometimes to either not buy insurance, which is just wrong, I think it’s immoral to not buy insurance, or to simply go with the state minimums. I think that’s also problematic, and possibly also a moral issue.

Now, I understand there are budgetary issues that every family has to deal with. Sometimes, realistically, minimum policies is all that the family can possibly afford. Even if you had the best budgeter examining and altering their budget, they would still put them on a 15/30, a minimum policy. If you have more money, and getting more insurance is not relatively all that much more expensive, buying is helps two people. One, it helps protect you. I had somebody come in recently and say that they had been in a car accident and somebody was suing them. They had assets that were exposed. If you have assets, if you have a lot of money in the bank account, if you have property, if you have real estate rental property, if you have other investments, you need to have insurance. You should also talk about it to an attorney, and you can come talk to our asset protection department, about how to set up those assets so they are protected.

Let’s move on to what I view as a moral issue of protecting others if it’s your fault. The idea is that none of us wants to cause an accident, none of us. It’s so easy to do it. Some are from sheer stupidity. They’re doing things that they shouldn’t be doing: drinking driving, things like that. Some of them are just simple mistakes. We all mistakes when driving. Luckily, for most of us, we don’t make mistakes when somebody’s in our way. But people screw up, and it’s an accident and people get hurt. Now if you find yourself in that situation where you have seriously hurt somebody, don’t you want to be in a position where you can offer up your own insurance policy? You know it’s not going to make it right. You know it’s not going to bring them back their legs or make them work again. It’s not going to make it better. It’s not really going to truly make it even, but it’s the best you can do.

If you’re sitting on a 15/30 policy and, heaven forbid, you nod off at the wheel or you over-adjust your car and you over-adjust your car and you make a mistake that anybody can make, and you kill somebody or you paralyze them for life, or you otherwise seriously, seriously hurt them, you want to be in a position where you can make it as right as possible. For those that have financial ability, I really encourage go buy at least $100,000 of coverage, at least, preferably 250. I’ve even seen a 500/500 policy. Now on top of that, both to protect yourself and to protect others, umbrella policies are very inexpensive. Purchasing a million dollars in coverage on top of your car insurance policy for just negligence, it’s a very affordable prospect. It protects your assets and it fulfills your duty to try to make things right if you have committed a wrong, even if it’s accidental.

I’m not selling insurance here, but you may want to talk to your insurance agent and make sure that your limits are appropriate to protect you, to protect your family, and to protect the other people that are on the road around you. If you have any questions, feel free to give us a call. Thanks for watching this video, and we’ll see you in the next video.

Clear Counsel Law group

Contact Info

1671 W Horizon Ridge Pkwy Suite 200,
Henderson, NV 89012

+1 702 522 0696
info@clearcounsel.com

Daily: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm
Saturday & Sunday: By Appointment Only

Copyright 2018 Clear Counsel Law Group ©  All Rights Reserved

Nothing on this site is legal advice.