YES
"Bad faith" is a term usually used to describe poor conduct by insurance companies on a failure to protect the assets of the insured. A bad faith lawsuit is usually filed by a an insured against his own insurance company after the insurance company has failed to settle a claim by an injured person and the injured person then obtains a judgment or verdict against the insured in excess of the policy limits of the insured person.
Attorneys will often say there is no difference, when it comes to extending coverage for legal liability. However, depending the specific additional form used there might be substanial differences in the portion of the general liabilty policy that is extended to the named insured versus the additional insured. For instance, older additional insured forms (CG 2010 11/85) extended coverage to the additional insured for "Products/Completed Operations". New forms use wording such as "ongoing operations of the named insured" that limit coverage to the additional insured to the "Premise/Operations" portion of the CGL form. In addition, an additional insured generally has no right to: * Request policy endorsements or cancellation * Receive copies of the policy contract, other than the a/i form and a certificate of insurance The purpose of an additional insured is to protect the rights of another party that might become legally liable for the actions of the named insured. For instance, a landlord might become entangled in a lawsuit caused by the actions of his tenant. By naming the landlord as additional insured, the named insured extends coverage, especially defense costs, to the landlord. The tenant's insurance company would have to defend both the named insured and the additional insured. Additional insured's are a common and increasingly important part of liability insurance. It is important you make sure your agent is aware of the specific nature of the relationship you have with the additional insured, to ensure the proper additonal insured form is provided. I generally like to review my clients contracts - including leases - to make sure the policy and a/i form are compliant.
In the state of Arizona, there is no specified time limit in which an insurance company has to settle a claim with an insured party or with a third party that has filed a claim. An individual does have a time limit of two years in which to file a lawsuit against the driver who was at fault in an accident.
If you really need to know your lawyer should be able to get that info for his lawsuit. A lawsuit is really the only time you would need to know this because: The trucking company carries Workmans Comp-insurance on drivers by law or you would be covered for injury under another policy if you were in a collision with another vehicle. The un-insured motorist coverage is to cover all aspects of a collision caused by another person.
Catering companies should cary liability insurance for their operations. This will protect them in the event of a lawsuit.
You can do a couple of things. First, you can file a civil lawsuit against them. Sometimes you will get your money and sometimes you wont. Another thing you can do is check your policy or call your insurance company and see if you have uninsured coverage. If you do, you can get your own insurance to cover the damages.
No, Homeowners Insurance does not provide liability coverage for criminal acts of the insured. It does not matter if your on or away from the property.
Not unless the lawsuit points out purposefull neglect on behalf of the insurance or company.
As long as you have insurance you are covered under your insurance. Your insurance will pay the cost to get the car repaired. Now from here it is up to you to seek a lawsuit against the person who hit you if you have there information.
Yes, I would. Sometimes a good lawsuit makes the insurers play it right.
Business liability insurance protects a company's assets from a lawsuit. If a business is high risk or doesn't have enough capital to cover a lawsuit, they should have business liability insurance.
If the driver was uninsured or only had liability insurance, they would be liable to still pay the finance company back or face a lawsuit.