Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:5mdkh1FcosrvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In the process of doing so now. Also threatening them with small claims
>> court (I am told that I would sue their customer, not the insurance
>> company
>
> This is I think hogwash.

And your answer, I think, is more of the same. You, the injured party,
MUST sue the insured party NOT their insurance company if you cannot
settle the case. The insured party, if HE has a problem with his
insurance company indemnifying him as they have contracted to do, may
sue them - but you can't since you don't have a contractual relationship
with them.


> If the policy holder was under an insurance policy the insurer is legally
> obligated to pay out on any claims. Why they would want you to sue
> the policyholder is rediculous. All their policyholder has to do is go into
> court and put up zero defense and immediately acquiece to all of your
> claims, and the insurance company is on the hook for everything you
> demand. Why would he spend the money arguing with you - it's not
> his money that will be paying your claim, it's his insurance company.

That's part and parcel of the insurance contract. The insurance company
will handle the claim. If they don't want to settle it, for any reason,
then you sue their insured - not them. They will, under the insurance
contract defend the claim against their insured and, if unsuccessful,
pay the damages awarded on behalf of their insured. However, the
insured MUST cooperate in the defense of the claim. If he fails to do
so, the insurance company may "reserve rights" which means that while
they MUST continue to defend the case to the best of their ability
WITHOUT the insured's cooperation, if they lose, the payment of the
judgment is the responsibility of the insured, not them. This
cooperation often becomes a problem but you rarely see the insurance
company failing to pay the judgment simply because very few people are
that stupid and they come around and cooperate after the insurance
company explains what's going to happen if they don't.

 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Bill Putney" <bptn@kinez.net> wrote in message
> news:5mdkh1FcosrvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In the process of doing so now. Also threatening them with small claims
>> court (I am told that I would sue their customer, not the insurance
>> company
>
> This is I think hogwash.

And your answer, I think, is more of the same. You, the injured party,
MUST sue the insured party NOT their insurance company if you cannot
settle the case. The insured party, if HE has a problem with his
insurance company indemnifying him as they have contracted to do, may
sue them - but you can't since you don't have a contractual relationship
with them.


> If the policy holder was under an insurance policy the insurer is legally
> obligated to pay out on any claims. Why they would want you to sue
> the policyholder is rediculous. All their policyholder has to do is go into
> court and put up zero defense and immediately acquiece to all of your
> claims, and the insurance company is on the hook for everything you
> demand. Why would he spend the money arguing with you - it's not
> his money that will be paying your claim, it's his insurance company.

That's part and parcel of the insurance contract. The insurance company
will handle the claim. If they don't want to settle it, for any reason,
then you sue their insured - not them. They will, under the insurance
contract defend the claim against their insured and, if unsuccessful,
pay the damages awarded on behalf of their insured. However, the
insured MUST cooperate in the defense of the claim. If he fails to do
so, the insurance company may "reserve rights" which means that while
they MUST continue to defend the case to the best of their ability
WITHOUT the insured's cooperation, if they lose, the payment of the
judgment is the responsibility of the insured, not them. This
cooperation often becomes a problem but you rarely see the insurance
company failing to pay the judgment simply because very few people are
that stupid and they come around and cooperate after the insurance
company explains what's going to happen if they don't.

 

In article <u3jLi.55667$YL5.55643@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> ,
Unquestionably Confused <Puzzled2@ameritech.net> wrote:

> I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving.
> Tooling along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level
I wonder what it would do in city stop & go driving.

>or a VERY
> slight downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg
> range.
Not surprising, I'm sure my 3.3L Concorde would show a similar high MPG
on a highway speed downgrade.
You need to combine that with going up the same slope.

 

In article <u3jLi.55667$YL5.55643@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> ,
Unquestionably Confused <Puzzled2@ameritech.net> wrote:

> I was impressed. Overall mileage was about 26.5 in mixed driving.
> Tooling along outside Phoenix on I-17 at 80m/h on dead level
I wonder what it would do in city stop & go driving.

>or a VERY
> slight downgrade showed instantaneous mileage readings in the 45-49 mpg
> range.
Not surprising, I'm sure my 3.3L Concorde would show a similar high MPG
on a highway speed downgrade.
You need to combine that with going up the same slope.