OT: Auto Accident Attorney Recommendation?

[jpinpb]

Try San Diego Injury Law Center Talk to David Achord.

[jamsvet]

Looks like Wawanesa is getting a few thousand dollars in “great” publicity here.

[jamsvet]

Looks like Wawanesa is getting a few thousand dollars in “great” publicity here.

[jamsvet]

Looks like Wawanesa is getting a few thousand dollars in “great” publicity here.

[jamsvet]

Looks like Wawanesa is getting a few thousand dollars in “great” publicity here.

[jamsvet]

Looks like Wawanesa is getting a few thousand dollars in “great” publicity here.

[Raybyrnes]

This sounds more like a dispute between and all risk vs named peril policy. Wawanesa may have a named driver policy in which only the insured and their spouse are eligible drivers of the car.
When this is the case you need to then go after the insurance carrier for whoever was actually driving the car and have them subrogate out the mess. You have option with respect to the 500 deductible. Pay the deductible and then wait to be reimbursed when everything settles out or simply create a paper trail take notes and get in contact with all parties.
The University of San Diego offers a free legal clinic. You may want to see if they cover this area of the law
http://www.sandiego.edu/law/free_legal_assistance/

[Raybyrnes]

This sounds more like a dispute between and all risk vs named peril policy. Wawanesa may have a named driver policy in which only the insured and their spouse are eligible drivers of the car.
When this is the case you need to then go after the insurance carrier for whoever was actually driving the car and have them subrogate out the mess. You have option with respect to the 500 deductible. Pay the deductible and then wait to be reimbursed when everything settles out or simply create a paper trail take notes and get in contact with all parties.
The University of San Diego offers a free legal clinic. You may want to see if they cover this area of the law
http://www.sandiego.edu/law/free_legal_assistance/

[Raybyrnes]

This sounds more like a dispute between and all risk vs named peril policy. Wawanesa may have a named driver policy in which only the insured and their spouse are eligible drivers of the car.
When this is the case you need to then go after the insurance carrier for whoever was actually driving the car and have them subrogate out the mess. You have option with respect to the 500 deductible. Pay the deductible and then wait to be reimbursed when everything settles out or simply create a paper trail take notes and get in contact with all parties.
The University of San Diego offers a free legal clinic. You may want to see if they cover this area of the law
http://www.sandiego.edu/law/free_legal_assistance/

[Raybyrnes]

This sounds more like a dispute between and all risk vs named peril policy. Wawanesa may have a named driver policy in which only the insured and their spouse are eligible drivers of the car.
When this is the case you need to then go after the insurance carrier for whoever was actually driving the car and have them subrogate out the mess. You have option with respect to the 500 deductible. Pay the deductible and then wait to be reimbursed when everything settles out or simply create a paper trail take notes and get in contact with all parties.
The University of San Diego offers a free legal clinic. You may want to see if they cover this area of the law
http://www.sandiego.edu/law/free_legal_assistance/

[Raybyrnes]

This sounds more like a dispute between and all risk vs named peril policy. Wawanesa may have a named driver policy in which only the insured and their spouse are eligible drivers of the car.
When this is the case you need to then go after the insurance carrier for whoever was actually driving the car and have them subrogate out the mess. You have option with respect to the 500 deductible. Pay the deductible and then wait to be reimbursed when everything settles out or simply create a paper trail take notes and get in contact with all parties.
The University of San Diego offers a free legal clinic. You may want to see if they cover this area of the law
http://www.sandiego.edu/law/free_legal_assistance/

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[UCGal]

I worked for Wawanese years ago (late 1979/80 time frame). Wawanesa used to require their insureds to sign “exclusions” if there was a less desirable driver in the household. This was used in roommate situations or one example I remember – a household with a 16 year old unlicensed driver, who’d already gotten in an accident. The parents had to sign a form specifically saying that if the kid were driving, it wouldn’t be covered.

Not sure how well these forms would/did hold up in court.

I suspect they’re still using these exclusions.

[Author]

Posts