My dad was recently involved in a fender-bender. He just received a letter from his own insurance company. The other party retained counsel and they requested information about his policy:

1. Confirmation of the existence of the policy
2. The policy number
3. The policy's liability limits applicable to the request
4. A copy of the policy Declaration

My dad's insurance company needs his consent in order to release the info. He has a choice of releasing none of it, or any number of the four.

My instinct is to refuse outright. Then I thought perhaps just #1 & 2(Name, Rank, and Serial# only...) to show some cooperation.

What say those of you with some knowledge of this?

Is there a consensus of who is at fault?

If the other party files suit, they will get the information anyway, during discovery. The lawyer is asking for your policy limits up front, to determine if it’s worth his while to take the case. If you have low liability limits, it might be better to disclose that now.

You should be guided by the advice of your attorney, or insurance carrier.

Many states require pre-suit disclosure of insurance information, however, many states require an insurer to have the consent of its insured prior to disclosing the information. I assume that is why the carrier asked your Dad for permission. I cannot speak to Kansas (I assume that is your Dad's location) but almost all states require disclosure of insurance information once suit is filed.

Bottom line is that the information will eventually become known. Disclosing it pre-suit may prevent the filing of litigation.

My Dad's insurance has determined him at least 51% at fault. I posted about the incident here.

We're not in Kansas, we're in Kalifornia.

As others have said, if it goes to suit, they're going to get it all anyway. As someone that worked in auto claims for a while, I'd say just release it. There's really not any secret info they're going to get out of it and they definitely need at least the limits of liability.

Being stubborn about releasing it will only make the situation more of a pain in the ass and possibly last longer than it needs to.

It likely won't go to suit if everyone cooperates, but just because it's a fender bender doesn't mean that it necessarily can't/won't. I was involved in an accident a couple years ago which was technically a fender bender. However the other carrier(s) were incredibly stubborn and non-responsive which wound up on a bad faith complaint to the division of insurance and it was a hair away from suit. The settlement (Which is still being negotiated) will wind up being in the mid five figures.


Edited to add: Just looked at the photos from the MVA. That's a decent hit (Way more than just a fender bender) and will incur probably a decent amount of injury claim. Definitely don't cause aggravation, send over what's currently requested. What are his limits of liability if you don't mind sharing?

My dad's coverage is 50/100.

These guys are bottom feeder of the lawyers.

Having had to deal with some over the years, they are going to weigh the case and how much they can make vs their time.

If there is not a lot of medical bills involved this should go away quickly.

California does not require pre-litigation disclosure of insurance information, but a carrier must ask its insured if they want to disclose the information if the information is requested. Without that consent, the insurer runs the risk of being sued by the policyholder for disclosure of confidential information.

Insurance information is subject to disclosure once litigation is filed.

quote:

Originally posted by Rawny:
My dad's coverage is 50/100.

I don't know where that is on the range of minimum required and average or even more.

If it's on the minimum required, then I would agree to release all. If it's multiples of the minimum required coverage, I would agree to relay all other information except that one.

Here's my reasoning: If it's the minimum required, then the other side's lawyers know there's not much meat on the bone. If it's multiples, then you don't want them to think going to trial versus the standard settlement may get them the jackpot.

From memory I was going to say $5,000 minimum in CA, but then I asked the DuckDuckGo. Per https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...urance-requirements/ Here are the minimum liability insurance requirements (per California Insurance Code §11580.1b):

$15,000 for injury/death to one person.
$30,000 for injury/death to more than one person.
$5,000 for damage to property.

I'd give them the information anyway, but that's just me.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
If it's multiples of the minimum required coverage, I would agree to relay all other information except that one.

Here's my reasoning: If it's the minimum required, then the other side's lawyers know there's not much meat on the bone. If it's multiples, then you don't want them to think going to trial versus the standard settlement may get them the jackpot.

Can you elaborate on that? Multiples of minimum, meaning there are more than one policy?

California's minimum is 15/30. Which is even worse than MA's minimum of 20/40.

I think what Rey means is policy limits above the state minimum, which your father has.

Injury damage basically amounts to: the insurance will pay for the medical bills incurred by the claimant (The person your father hit), and then the claimant will get the value of the medical bills incurred, money for lost time regardless of whether or not they have sick leave, plus a multiplier which varies depending on the extent of the injury. That's where negotiation between the claimant attorney and your dad's insurance company comes in.

As I have said, do not play games with releasing the info. The lawyer isn't going to say "oh he must have state min, it's not worth it" and go away. They're going to stay around. The only way this lawyer would have said screw it, would be if there was only a scratch on the paint and the claimant didn't seek medical attention.

I could speculate on the amount this may come to, but without knowing the other person's injuries and what they're getting for treatment it would be tough.

The other driver was out of the car walking and talking with my dad with no outward signs of injuries. My dad's dash cam probably recorded her doing just that. As the picture showed, the impact was on the left front wheel with no cabin intrusion.

Yeah, she must be traumatized...

quote:

Originally posted by Rawny:

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
If it's multiples of the minimum required coverage, I would agree to relay all other information except that one.

Here's my reasoning: If it's the minimum required, then the other side's lawyers know there's not much meat on the bone. If it's multiples, then you don't want them to think going to trial versus the standard settlement may get them the jackpot.

Can you elaborate on that? Multiples of minimum, meaning there are more than one policy?

here's putting the numbers in as an example only. If the minimum required liability insurance in your state is 10k/50k and you have 10k/50k, then have your insurance company include that information. It tells the lawyers that there's not much meat on the policy for them to gnaw at and, if all you can afford is 10k/50k, then you must not have much assets on your own for them to go after. They're going to want to settle as soon as they can and move on to the next case.

Given the same minimum requirement of 10k/50k and you're carrying 100k / 500k, I wouldn't disclose that because that's a pretty good chunk of meat and they can afford to prolong the negotiations to get more settlement out. You might even be worth investigating to see what assets you have outside of the policy, in which case, they might think they hit the jackpot with you.

Now, I don't know if 10x the multiple is not a lot or even 3x is considered meaty. But the idea is you want them to settle quickly with the minimum numbers for this case and not let them think any additional juice they can go after is worth the squeeze.

quote:

Originally posted by Rawny:
The other driver was out of the car walking and talking with my dad with no outward signs of injuries. My dad's dash cam probably recorded her doing just that. As the picture showed, the impact was on the left front wheel with no cabin intrusion.

Yeah, she must be traumatized...

I bumped a women in stop and go commute traffic. no damage on either car. she had a regular sedan and I had a small car. One year later, i get served papers with all sorts of claim including loss of "marital" whatever as in supposedly she couldn't have sex. Fucking grifters.

quote:

including loss of "marital" whatever as in supposedly she couldn't have sex

Tell her you need to check for yourself.

1. They are going to get it any ways so..you decide when.

2. It doesn't matter what they look or act at the accident. If you are at fault, you will be liable for medical treatment and such(valid or not). I had a guy who did the same thing. Weeks later, went to the dr for a few visits. Then years later, went for more. 2 year 11 months and a few days later, I was served with the lawsuit.

3. Everyone really need to evaluate their policy, you need better limits than state minimum or even 50/100. At a minimum, 100/300...but most people who makes a decent living should carry 250/500k. some of you(except those with $ in off shore accounts) should get an umbrella. If you have the right coverage, you would care less about these type of situations.

quote:

Originally posted by Beanhead:
3. Everyone really need to evaluate their policy, you need better limits than state minimum or even 50/100. At a minimum, 100/300...but most people who makes a decent living should carry 250/500k. some of you(except those with $ in off shore accounts) should get an umbrella. If you have the right coverage, you would care less about these type of situations.

This is the most important point. 100/300-250/500 minimum, and a $1mil umbrella can usually be had for a few hundred a year. Anyone that has a house should have one.

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:

quote:

Originally posted by Beanhead:
3. Everyone really need to evaluate their policy, you need better limits than state minimum or even 50/100. At a minimum, 100/300...but most people who makes a decent living should carry 250/500k. some of you(except those with $ in off shore accounts) should get an umbrella. If you have the right coverage, you would care less about these type of situations.

This is the most important point. 100/300-250/500 minimum, and a $1mil umbrella can usually be had for a few hundred a year. Anyone that has a house should have one.

This is correct, anything else has your house in the collection equation.