Most insurance companies refuse to pay more than the amount that has been stated as the limit, according to the terms that were offered to a given policyholder.
What is a policy limit?
That is the maximum amount of money that an insurance company has agreed to be responsible for producing, if a policyholder were to seek some form of compensation. That limit also applies to the amount of money that could be offered to any victim of the same policyholder’s negligence.
Ways that a claimant might manage to win more than the policy limit
Claimants that have chosen to sue a defendant might be acting in response to an insurance company’s refusal to offer more than the limit, as stated in the same defendant’s insurance policy.
Understand that initiation of a lawsuit does not guarantee to the plaintiff the ability to win that larger amount of money. It simply provides the plaintiff with the opportunity to go after an amount that exceeds what the insurer has offered in the past.
A claimant’s ability to sue more than one defendant could result in the winning of an amount of money that exceeded any policyholder’s limit. The victim of a collision with a commercial truck might use that approach. In addition to suing the driver, the victim might be able to sue a trucking company, a leasing company or a transport company.
Claimants that purchase and use an umbrella policy enjoy the opportunity to win more than the limit on a different policy. That is the whole point to buying an umbrella policy. It gives the policyholder access to money that has been withheld, due to the existence of certain policy limits.
Is there ever a situation where an insurance company might agree to exceed the limit, when compensating a claimant or plaintiff?
That suggested situation might become a reality if a claimant’s or plaintiff’s desire for more money has pushed him or her to file a lawsuit against the unyielding insurance company. Still, the mere filing of such a lawsuit would not guarantee achievement of a win for the plaintiff.
The Injury Lawyer in Richmond Hill representing the plaintiff would need to show that the sued insurance agency had acted in bad faith. That would entail proving that the terms in the policyholder’s contract with the same agency had suggested that it would be possible for any policyholder to win an amount of money that exceeded the policy limit.
Otherwise, the same lawyer would have to prove the improper nature of the agency’s actions. That could entail alleging that a client had been charged falsely with being partly responsible for an accident. By proving that allegation, the lawyer would show the existence of bad faith.