You didn't get it. I was not talking about different

things, you are. I hope you are not like the most of those 25/50/25 coverage folks. Because with that kind of insurnce coverage, often times if you are sued by someone for the injury and damage you casue, insurance company will be happily paying him your 25K limit and leave you on your own.
On the other hand, if you are at the receiving end of injury and damage, and the other guy does not have enough insurance coverage, you will only be getting his 25k limit if you don't purchase enough under/uninsured coverage for yourself. Unless you take him to a court. At that moment an insurance case becomes a civil case.
But don't assume anyone owns a house is rich. A lot of times owners have less than 20% equity in the house.

All I was saying is buy eoungh coverage for yourself. Your examples are interesting but not to the point.
Plus the previous posts wrongfully discourages the injured from getting what he is entitled to under insurance law.

You and 66196 seem to students in law school. Insurance law is not common with civil/criminal laws. Sometime you don't have to find someone guilty or responsible for insurance company to pay. It is automatic. The purpose of insurance is to avoid lengthy legal battles. So do not confuse our daily folks here.

所有跟帖： 

• Again you missed the point -68156- ♀ (1189 bytes) () 12/24/2005 postreply 11:51:30

• 回複：Again you missed the point -16962- ♀ (274 bytes) () 12/26/2005 postreply 12:22:38