Lawyers are the scum of the earth.

[Arrian]

Just to nitpick a couple of things here:

1. The proper response, if a claim against the other drivers is indeed proper in this case, is a counterclaim, rather than a cross-claim. A cross-claim is a claim made by one party against another party on the same side of the v., i.e., defendant against a co-defendant or plaintiff against a co-plaintiff. A counterclaim is one made by a defendant against a plaintiff.

2. The insurance company will most likely advise you to find your own lawyer in order to pursue a counterclaim. The defense it's obligated to provide is just that, a defense on the claims against you. When I was in a staff counsel office, we never went further than advising the outside client that he may have a counterclaim, and that if he did, we couldn't handle it for him. This may apply to cases the insurance company retains outside counsel for, but I'm only going as far as cases assigned to staff counsel here.

1. Correct, I mixed up my terms.

2. It depends. If the insurer decides that the pursuit of a counterclaim is helpful in defeating liability, it may elect to pay for some or all of that effort. I've seen it happen. WE don't tend to do it, sure. Other carriers have absolutely done it, and then pitched a fit when we refused to join in. All that said, I agree in the sense that it's not *obligated* to pay for a counterclaim.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

1. The proper response, if a claim against the other drivers is indeed proper in this case, is a counterclaim, rather than a cross-claim. A cross-claim is a claim made by one party against another party on the same side of the v., i.e., defendant against a co-defendant or plaintiff against a co-plaintiff. A counterclaim is one made by a defendant against a plaintiff.

Generally speaking, you are correct. However in some places, such as California, the counterclaim has been abolished, and you file a cross-complaint instead.

[Solomwi]

Generally speaking, you are correct. However in some places, such as California, the counterclaim has been abolished, and you file a cross-complaint instead.

Fair enough (and same to Arrian on point 2). I did say it was just a nitpick.

[asleepathewheel]

Thread necromancy.


From a US, Texas perspective, and I'm guessing most of this has already been said:

Entrustment cases are pretty tough to prove, particularly when the driver is 23.

I've handled a few of these (primarily I was med-mal defense) in the past year (before switching jobs this month) and generally they are filed to get at a larger pie for settlement purpose. I've dealt with Safeco (liberty mutual), State Farm, and Farmer's none of which will pay anything above damage to the auto and medical expenses (and then exhaustively scrutinize the billing)

Usually these are filed to avoid statute of limitations issues, the plaintiffs wait till the end of the statutory period trying to get more medical bills and then are forced to file when the company doesn't pay out.

I had a hilarious case that was filed in sept, a day before the statute ran on the plaintiff in my case. P actually died in the accident, but his BAC was .23, which is extraordinarily high, and the police report faulted him. Well, his common-law (a dubious claim in this case) wife filed suit on behalf of his estate. P's attorney had no clue that he was blasted out of his mind at the time of the accident, but was a solo-practitioner who didn't bother getting all the facts before filing (probably what happened in Ben's case). I filed a nasty counter-claim for negligent entrustment-her car, he had no license due to a slew of previous dui's, other offenses, and that got the case non-suited pretty fast. (these were hillbillies who had no assets for me to go after, so we dropped out as well)

[Zkribbler]

(these were hillbillies who had no assets for me to go after, so we dropped out as well)

The first rule of law, as stated by Steve Dallas the sleezy lawyer in Doonesbury: "Never ever sue poor people."

[Darius871]

I had a hilarious case that was filed in sept, a day before the statute ran on the plaintiff in my case. P actually died in the accident, but his BAC was .23, which is extraordinarily high, and the police report faulted him. Well, his common-law (a dubious claim in this case) wife filed suit on behalf of his estate. P's attorney had no clue that he was blasted out of his mind at the time of the accident, but was a solo-practitioner who didn't bother getting all the facts before filing (probably what happened in Ben's case). I filed a nasty counter-claim for negligent entrustment-her car, he had no license due to a slew of previous dui's, other offenses, and that got the case non-suited pretty fast. (these were hillbillies who had no assets for me to go after, so we dropped out as well)

NO WAY the job can get that easy. Why do they even make us take the bar?

[Darius871]

The first rule of law, as stated by Steve Dallas the sleezy lawyer in Doonesbury: "Never ever sue poor people."

He forgot the caveat "except for injunctive relief."

[asleepathewheel]

NO WAY the job can get that easy. Why do they even make us take the bar?

In insurance defense, particularly auto cases, there are just a ton of lax plaintiff's attorneys who operate on volume. Since every case has to be defended...:money:

[Darius871]

[Solomwi]

In insurance defense, particularly auto cases, there are just a ton of lax plaintiff's attorneys who operate on volume. Since every case has to be defended...:money:

Indeed. I got one while working for Travelers' where a deputy sheriff had rear-ended the plaintiff (auto accident, you dirty-minded buggers). The plaintiff's attorney sued the county, under a respondeat superior theory, and no one else. He, of course, plead that the sheriff was acting in the line and scope of his employment at the time of the wreck. In Alabama, that's enough to give the deputy immunity, but it gets worse. He sued the county, and only the county. Alabama sheriffs and their deputies are employees of the state, not the county.

[asleepathewheel]

Indeed. I got one while working for Travelers' where a deputy sheriff had rear-ended the plaintiff (auto accident, you dirty-minded buggers). The plaintiff's attorney sued the county, under a respondeat superior theory, and no one else. He, of course, plead that the sheriff was acting in the line and scope of his employment at the time of the wreck. In Alabama, that's enough to give the deputy immunity, but it gets worse. He sued the county, and only the county. Alabama sheriffs and their deputies are employees of the state, not the county.

Love cases like that, pump out a few billable hours of discovery motions, a few hours of correspdence to the company, plaintiff, and the insured, and a few hours of researching and drafting the MSJ. a tidy little boost to the billables with zero chance of the case escalating into anything meaningful.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well I'd love to offer you an update and say that everything is hunky-dorey, but I've not heard anything yet from my friends.

Thanks again for your help!

[Berzerker]

So answer the relevant questions. Was he found to be speeding at the time? Was he drunk? Was there anything he was found legally to be at fault with here? You keep avoiding the question, and if the answer to any of these is "maybe" or "yes" then the legal advice changes dramatically here.

Your dramatics to the mere suggestion is just annoying, if not completely distracting.

it dont matter if he's speeding and drunk out of his mind - the other motorist pulled out to pass a truck when it was unsafe to do so. Thats the only relevant fact...

[RGBVideo]

I'm going to guess here -- and bare with me for this unprecedented leap -- that Ben is lying or omitting details. I'm willing to bet the motorcyclists was breaking the law in some way here. I'm going to guess he was speeding while passing, and came up so quickly that the driver didn't see him when they collided. That kind of makes sense.

Still a ****ty thing to do to the family of the dead guy, but I'm going to bet the guy was insured and as a result, the insurance policy will pay it out. They're essentially suing the dead guy's insurance company to milk it for money. At least, that's my non-lawyerly perspective.

Oh c'mon, isn't this what we all were thinking right after reading the OP?