Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. We know very little about your case except that you were rear ended and claim 32k in medical bills. There must be some problem with the case if the insurer is not throwing in its policy limits. Not doing so exposes their insured to a possible huge excess verdict. What explanation did the adjuster give you for disregarding the medical expense?
  3. Today
  4. I have submitted a complaint to the department of insurance. Nothing happened. Never got a response.
  5. Yes, actually, in California you can do that under the Unfair Claims Practices statute 790.03(h) http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=INS&division=1.&title=&part=2.&chapter=1.&article=6.5. PG1067, see: https://corporate.findlaw.com/corporate-governance/third-party-bad-faith-actions-return-to-california.html and: https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/2300/2334/ But to succeed in a bad faith lawsuit you would have to show that what they are doing is "a general business practice." In other words, not just something they are doing to you. Bad faith lawsuits are very complex. You might seek an attorney with specific experience in successfully suing insurance companies for bad faith. Or, as PG1067 suggests, file a complaint with the Department of Insurance citing the violations of the statute. At least, then, you may get a reason for the insurance company low balling you.
  6. You could (anyone can sue anyone for anything), but you'll quickly lose and be required to pay the insurance company's court costs. California does not recognize a cause of action for bad-faith against an insurer arising out of a third-party claim. Your recourse is to do what I previously suggested or sue the other driver. You can also submit a complaint to the California Department of Insurance.
  7. No, it is not true that you may drive on the roads of any state without a driver's license. The sites on the internet that promote that idea badly mischaracterizes the law. That slew of case law that you posted does not, unfortunately, stand for the proposition that whomever posted it says it does. What the authors of sites promoting this idea do is take quotes in cases that have have nothing to do with licensing at all or take the quotes out of context because the quotes sound good for the argument they wish to make. But should you try arguing those cases in court on a citation for driving without a license you will lose. When faced squarely with the issue of whether a license is required, the courts have universally said the answer is yes. I will give you a few of the cases in which the constitutionality of state laws requiring driver’s licenses has been upheld. Let’s start with the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court: Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 36, 62 S. Ct. 24, 26–27, 86 L. Ed. 21 (1941). And as you put Oregon as your state, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the federal appellate court that covers Oregon) explained why a driver’s license does not violate the right to travel: Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205–06 (9th Cir. 1999). Other circuits have reached the same conclusion: Matthew v. Honish, 233 F. App'x 563, 564 (7th Cir. 2007). Duncan v. Cone, No. 00-5705, 2000 WL 1828089, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000). The above are cases in which the constitutionality of driver's license laws were specifically addressed, unlike the cases you cited. And as you can see, the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have found that driver's license laws do not violate the Constitution.
  8. U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” – Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 “… the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right” -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562, 566-67 (1979) “citizens have a right to drive upon the public streets of the District of Columbia or any other city absent a constitutionally sound reason for limiting their access.” Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .” Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966). “A traveler has an equal right to employ an automobile as a means of transportation and to occupy the public highways with other vehicles in common use.” Campbell v. Walker, 78 Atl. 601, 603, 2 Boyce (Del.) 41. “The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle.” Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. 234, 236. “The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts.” People v. Horton 14 Cal. App. 3rd 667 (1971) “The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling in some other vehicle.” House v. Cramer, 112 N.W. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 233, 237, 62 Fla. 166. “The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. The law recognizes such right of use upon general principles. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. 762, 764, 41 Ind. App. 662, 666. “The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. It is improper to say that the driver of the horse has rights in the roads superior to the driver of the automobile. Both have the right to use the easement.” Indiana Springs Co. v. Brown, 165 Ind. 465, 468. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 “A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle.” Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. 2d 298, 304, 220 Ga. 104; Stavola v. Palmer, 73 A.2d 831, 838, 136 Conn. 670 “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.” Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” -American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120 The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile.’” -City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232 “Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled” – Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20 ” The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). “…a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon…” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 “The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163 “the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business… is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all.” – Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 “Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty.” People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. “No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways… transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances.” Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime.” People v. Battle “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 “The word ‘operator’ shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation.” Statutes at Large California Chapter 412 p.83 “Highways are for the use of the traveling public, and all have the right to use them in a reasonable and proper manner; the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen.” Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. . . “ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. “Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless.” City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. “A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent.” Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. A. 2d 639. “The object of a license is to confer a right or power, which does not exist without it.” Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972). “If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void.” – Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887. “The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.” (Paul v. Virginia). “[T]he right to travel freely from State to State … is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro v. Thompson). EDGERTON, Chief Judge: “Iron curtains have no place in a free world. …’Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the Constitution.’ Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186. “Our nation has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” Id., at 197. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. 6, 13—14. “The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts.” Comment, 61 Yale L.J. at page 187. “a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is “not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.”Justice White, Hiibel “Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles.” Cumberland Telephone. & Telegraph Co. v Yeiser 141 Kentucy 15. “Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road.” Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a “statute.” A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle. Other right to use an automobile cases: – EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 – TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 – WILLIAMS VS. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, AT 274 – CRANDALL VS. NEVADA, 6 WALL. 35, AT 43-44 – THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 – U.S. VS. GUEST, 383 U.S. 745, AT 757-758 (1966) – GRIFFIN VS. BRECKENRIDGE, 403 U.S. 88, AT 105-106 (1971) – CALIFANO VS. TORRES, 435 U.S. 1, AT 4, note 6 – SHAPIRO VS. THOMPSON, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) – CALIFANO VS. AZNAVORIAN, 439 U.S. 170, AT 176 (1978) Look the above citations up in American Jurisprudence. Some citations may be paraphrased.
  9. There isnt any other reason except that they know if I hire a lawyer, I will only get 10k anyway. I could sue the insurance company for bad faith as they are unwilling to pay the policy limit out but that takes even longer....they wont even give me a reason why they sre only offerring 10k.
  10. im in the state of california. Both the at fault driver and I have the same policy limits which means I cant use underinsured motorist coverage (state of california). Bbn
  11. Yesterday
  12. I assume you're talking about the other driver's liability insurance carrier. Correct? If you can't get the other driver's insurer to put more money on the table and aren't willing to accept what's being offered, then this is your only option. Depending on the laws of your unidentified state, it is unlikely that a bad faith cause of action by a third-party claimant such as yourself is recognized as valid. Even if you could do this, I seriously doubt you have the ability to self-litigate against an insurance company that will be represented by legal counsel. Then take the $10k. Then there's got to be some reason why the insurer isn't offering the $15k policy limits. It's not just doing it for s***s and giggles. If I were you, I'd consult with a few local PI attorneys and see if they think they can be of any value to you. As noted above, while a lawyer charging a 1/3 contingent fee would be of no value to you, it's possible you can find one willing to accept less than that for a limited scope of work.
  13. And there would be costs added on top of the 1/3, so the OP would actually get less than $10K.
  14. There is no bad faith on third party liability claims. The other driver's insurance company owes you nothing until a court of law says so and says how much. You sue the driver if you want to sue. You don't need money to hire a personal injury attorney. They work on contingency. They get paid if they get you a settlement or an award. However, they typically get 1/3 so if an attorney won the $15K limits, you'd get $10K anyway. If the attorney got a judgment for more than $15K, collecting against someone with minimum limits would be problematic. Have you looked to your Underinsured Motorists Coverage? What state are you located it?
  15. I was rear ended 2/14/2018. Had physical therapy, missed work and continue to have ongoing back problems. Insurance company refuses to pay the policy limit of 15k and only offered 10k. I dont have the money to hire a lawyer, Ive negotiated on my own but we are now at an impasse. Should I sue the at fault driver or try to sue the insurance company for bad faith? I just want this over with but my medical bills are over 32k.
  16. The answer depends on the terms of your mortgage agreement. However, once you don't own own the home anymore, your liability for this sort of thing typically stops.
  17. Yes. It's in your mortgage contract that you carry insurance on the house. If you don't, your contract allows the mortgage company to buy it's own insurance and charge you for it. The insurance covers the lender as its interest may appear. Even if there is no longer a property securing the loan, the insurance fee is charged even though the mortgage company would never collect on it. Did you tell the person who wrote you that letter that you no longer owned the property and that there is nothing to insure? If yes, what was the response? If no, maybe you should have done that before coming here.
  18. In 2010 we lost our house to foreclosure. We had a second mortgage on it which we have been paying, and now are down to $5000. The bank that just took over our second mortgage sent us a letter that states we owe $212 a year on hazard insurance on the foreclosure house. Can this bank legally do this: Take out hazard insurance on a house we no longer own and make us pay it? We have never missed a payment on our second mortgage, ever! Thank you for your help
  19. It's bad enough not to ask a question, but you didn't even post a complete sentence.
  20. Some one probably will.
  21. Is the product licensed by the owner of the trademark? If not, the answer is no. Also, I'm not sure what "tries to sue" might mean. By asking the seller for a copy of the license. You can use all the disclaimers you like. Whether they'll do you any good is impossible to know in the abstract. In most cases, if the product is properly licensed, no. You don't "need to . . . create a business entity," and you only need an EIN if you create a corporation or an LLC.
  22. No way to know, but probably not. Simply saying that someone is "disabled" conveys no useful information. Also, so what? Do you think that having your wife criminally prosecuted and, potentially incarcerated will be of any benefit to you? He can seek a divorce and an order that the wife pay alimony.
  23. Did the defense attorney object? If your question is whether the single quoted bit in your original post constitutes prosecutorial misconduct, the answer is that it likely doesn't. Any sort of discussion about those two quoted sentence, completely out of context, would be utterly pointless. You are, of course, free to hire a lawyer to review the entire trial record and advise you. Then the question you asked -- "Can someone tell me about prosecutorial misconduct during a criminal trial?" -- was not well-thought out. You are free to ask your cousin's lawyer about what happened and whether anything can be done. Or you can hire an attorney yourself to review the record. However, you have no standing to take any action in a case in which you weren't a party. Of course it is. You provided zero other information about the case. That's what "out of context" means.
  24. Control of marital residence during seperation
  25. No, and regulations don't prevent things from happening. Unless you were damaged as a result of what happened, your post raises no legal issue. I could not disagree more. Unless the OP has an androgynous name (e.g., Pat or Terry) and the OP's friend claimed to be the OP, then it absolutely is the hotel's fault. While the hotel may have had no reason to believe that the OP didn't know this woman, the hotel also had no reason to believe the OP knew the woman. Simply walking up to the front desk and saying, "hi, I'm with Terry," should not result in Terry being checked in and the person being handed room keys. No decent hotel would allow that. I can't remember the last time I checked into a hotel without having to show a photo ID and credit card. But, that doesn't change the fact that, unless the OP suffered damages, there's no legal issue here. The hotel employee who allowed this to happen, however, ought to be in fear of losing his/her job.
  26. The court may order a bail bond forfeited if the defendant fails to appear at a scheduled court date. No. It's your and your lawyer's job to know when your court dates are scheduled. Bondsmen almost never know when court dates are scheduled. Despite your use of a question mark, this sentence does not appear to be a question and is barely coherent. One more time in English, please. Bondsmen and bounty hunters are not the same thing. In the bail bond industry, the term bondsman is typically used to refer to the local agent who, pursuant to a direct or indirect contract with a surety company, sells bail bonds to criminal defendants. While some bondsmen handle recovery themselves, most contract with bail recovery agents (i.e., bounty hunters) to handle fugitive recovery.
  27. Not necessarily. An LLC is a disregarded entity for income tax purposes. You would use your own SSN and attach Schedules C and SE to your return. Nor will an LLC protect you from being sued personally for trademark infringement. The best and safest route is to get consent from the manufacturer even if it means buying a license. An infringement lawsuit can put you into the poorhouse just from defense costs even if you haven't done anything wrong. If you aren't willing to do it right, don't do it.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...