If you file a lawsuit against someone who isn’t financially stable and also doesn’t have insurance then it is fruitless to file a case against that party because they can’t complete any sort of financial demand. They can say you apologizing words but can’t undo your financial loss.
If there is an injury case going on between two parties. The one who loses have to pay to the winner all the loss he had and have to compensate him financially. By this the financial or materialistic loss but anybody can’t undo the emotional loss and the pain by which the party goes through. But if the defendant is financially weak. He couldn’t undo emotional as well as he also can’t help in the financial or materialistic loss. The only way he can pay you is by insurance from which he can get money and undo your loss. But when the defendant isn’t strong financially and also doesn’t have much insurance amount to pay there is not any result of struggling for winning the case.
How does that process happen?
It is a very stress full and very painful process for both parties. It happens very rarely that the plaintiff hires a personal injury and he does the whole process. A typical case gets a lot of input from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to do A lot of struggle and handwork and sometimes he also has to answer the question which directly points to his character.
If the defendant doesn’t own assets, property, or any heavy insurance so that he can pay another party. So then the plaintiff also thinks about covering his loss by terms of giving punishment to the defendant would be right? Even if he doesn’t need money to recover his loss and he just wants to punish the defendant in terms of money. But when he sees the defendant isn’t able to fulfill the plaintiff’s demands in terms of punishment. This could be painful for both parties in terms of physical and mental both. Then of course winning party also takes a step back and thinks does he really deserves this punishment?
Unfortunately, the strongest accident with proofs and wonderful points is useless until there is a worthful pot from which the plaintiff can get money.
The case of Auto insurance is special:
It is stated by research that mostly accident happens with auto accidents, it will be great that every state automobile owners start an Auto insurance facility.
Many states have and also implementation of no fault law. It means that no fault law says that The insurance company plaintiff possesses will pay all the damage and in that condition “no suit law” is not necessary, or sometimes permitted. This is the effect of UIM(uninsured motorist ) coverage.
Do you know about UIM coverage?
UIM is the facility given to the plaintiff that will recover his All loss including money loss, medical injury, auto damage, hurt, and pain he gets. But this offer you will get only when the defender isn’t financially strong and can’t pay the damage or doesn’t have any sort of heavy insurance or assets. Then UIM will recover the plaintiff’s loss and damage unless he didn’t reject UIM at the time of purchasing the auto insurance. Because after rejection UIM won’t be applicable and mostly it gets rejected.
If the plaintiff didn’t reject UIM then it doesn’t matter that the defendant isn’t able to pay the loss or he doesn’t have any strong insurance. It will pay your loss.UIM will pay you up to the limits of their coverage. Then no lawsuit would be necessary there. Even the defendant doesn’t even have to be sued. UIM will pay the loss without saying that the clause will only apply when the defendant gets to sue.
Plaintiff may go through this process in terms of UIM that he isn’t trigging his insurance company or UIM.
What does the” No-fault law” say:
This law says that The insurance company will pay All the loss no matter how many assets does the defender has or if the defender has insurance. It will pay all the losses. The insurance company will pay for all losses caused by an accident. Now the question arrives that the UIM coverage will also pay the loss and coverage under no-fault law then what is the difference between these two?
This is called PIP ( personal injury protection)
Actually, in no-fault law, the plaintiff is not having permission to sue the defendant. For damage purposes. It also doesn’t care about the defendant that he is having assets or any sort of insurance to recover the plaintiff’s loss.
On the other hand that No-fault law allows the plaintiff to sue the defender when he gets a strong loss from his side whether it is money loss, wedges, or medical injuries. There are change terms of No-fault law in every state. Sometimes it will permit the plaintiff to sue even on strongest injuries and loss regardless of serious, painful injury loss or damage.
Summarizing it all it says that the injuries and loss of plaintiff is due to defendant who is uninsured and causes an auto accident where defendant is the one who is on fault.
Then he will get his loss paid, depends upon how strong pieces of evidence he gathers and having a strong investigator but if he sues someone when his loss or injury doesn’t happen with auto accident and the defender also don’t have strong assets and insurance then the plaintiff will get strong harsh behavior reality. The plaintiff will get this because of suing the person who is not having strong assets or does not have the power to pay. After defending his case being attacked emotionally, mentally as well as his character will be also pointed if he gets a win then even then he would not get much recovery regardless it is medical, assets, emotional or physical.