Pursuing a Homeowners Insurance Claim

There are insurance policies for almost everything. Californians know that celebrities hold insurance policies to their own body parts even. Automobile insurance is the most familiar, but there is also homeowners insurance, which is also well known. Home-buyers are sometimes required to purchase homeowners insurance before they can move in. 

Homeowners insurance covers a wide variety of different events. Fires, floods, theft, and dog bites are just a few. Both liability (coverage for negligence of the homeowner) and losses (damages that homeowners incur) are covered. There are exclusions and exceptions. Delays, denials, and confusion can be anticipated.

Every policy is different; attorneys can assist in pursuing a first party claim, particularly if the insurance company has issued a denial. A first party claim is when a policyholder pursues a claim pursuant to the policy purchased. For example, a first party claim could be made when a home is burglarized, and there is a provision that covers items stolen.

Since insurance law is based on case law, statutes, and regulations, there are a myriad of ways a policy can be interpreted. It is important, however, to know some basic principles. Here is a non-exhaustive short list:

1) Once a claim is reported, the insurance carrier must provide basic information to the policyholder -- like limits, benefits, coverages, exclusions, and other provisions in the specific policy in place.

2) An insurer must explain why a claim has been denied, and provide a basis for that decision. For example, if a claim was denied because the insurer did not have an opportunity to inspect the premises, it would have to show that a request was made and the request was denied.

3) Before an insurance carrier can ask for a "release," it must explain the legal consequences of having the claimant execute the release, i.e. forever barring the claimant from pursuing the claim further in court, or in arbitration.

4) The insurer must respond within 15 days if a claimant asks for information related to his or her claim. An insurer cannot ignore its own insured.

5) All insurance companies must investigate a claim with diligence, thoroughness, and in good faith. The insurer cannot delay a claim when there is sufficient, reasonable information to conclude the claim.

Pursuing a homeowners insurance claim can be daunting. It is important to know your rights and to be aggressive. It is extremely wise to contact an experienced attorney.

The Elements of Negligence

There are a number of different ways to get injured, unfortunately. People may slip, or a person may be involved in a motor vehicle accident with someone else. Others may even fall from a shoddy building.

Injured persons all share a common possible cause of action: negligence. The person that slipped may have stepped on a banana peel left on the ground by a business employee; the person who struck the injured's vehicle may have been speeding; and the building, where the injured fell, may have not been up to regulatory code.

Negligence is common. Although there may be an infinite number of ways that negligence could occur, the elements of negligence are always the same. For a claimant/plaintiff to be successful, he or she must prove duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Let's go through the elements in more depth.

Duty and breach of duty is what makes a defendant "negligent." As individuals of society, we have duties to one another. We have a duty not to harm someone from our actions -- we must use reasonable care. Further, some individuals in society may have more duties than others. A business owner is obligated to provide safe products, i.e. he has a duty to ensure that what he or she is selling is safe. A driver of a motor vehicle must also ensure that he or she is obeying all laws, and driving with due care.

When someone does not live up to their duty to another, or breaches that duty, he or she may be "negligent." For example, let's take a motor vehicle accident. Person A was speeding, talking on his cell phone, and eating a burrito. Upon approaching Person B, Person A could not stop his vehicle in time. Person A's truck slammed into Person's B tiny car. The accident is intense. In this example, Person A breached his duty to drive with due care, and he was "negligent" to Person B.

Being "negligent" does not prove negligence though. There are four elements, not two. A claimant/plaintiff must also show causation and damages.

Causation must connect the "negligent" act with the injuries incurred (damages, which we will discuss shortly). For example, if a person fell from a shoddy building, the building owner still may not be liable for the injuries. Why? Maybe causation cannot be proved. Even though the building was not up to code, the breach of not following the building codes had nothing to do with why the person fell from the building. The falling person was pushed by a criminal. In this example, the building owner cannot be responsible because his failure to not keep the building up to code did not cause the person to fall -- the criminal who pushed him off was responsible for the fall.

Finally, any negligence claim must prove damages. Damages are those monetary costs that an injured person may face: medical bills, car repair bills, rental bills, pain and suffering, lost wages, etc. If someone is involved in an accident, but fortunately, the person is not harmed, he or she does not have a negligence case. There must be damages for any case to proceed.

Negligence may be a common occurrence in the law, and laypersons may be familiar with some of the concepts, but it is wise to consult with an attorney who has experience in personal injury. If you or a loved one has been injured as the result of someone else, contact our office for a free phone consultation. Be safe out there.

You Should Know What's In Your Automobile Insurance Policy

As a practicing injury accident attorney, I get the pleasure of having to deal with insurance companies on a daily basis. Insurance companies are essential but if you do not understand the relationship between the insurance company and yourself, you could find yourself in trouble later on.

Almost every client we retain lack knowledge on what is specifically in their insurance policies. They do not know what their bodily injury policy limits are. Or whether they have rental coverage. Some do not even know what medical payment coverage is or uninsured motorist coverage for that matter. It is a problem because it can leave you having to pay for expenses out of pocket that could have been avoided.

Let's discuss insurance policies so that my readers can be prepared, and financially secure in the event of an accident.

WHAT IS INSURANCE?  

First, what is insurance? Insurance spreads risk among a number of parties. You purchase a contract with a premium, to cover you in the event of an occurrence. That occurrence could be as simple as a rear-ender or as devastating as multi-vehicle collision resulting in death. The pooled risk, held by the big insurer, pays for the liability of the negligent party, and in some cases, the defense fees in litigation. Thus, the insurance contract transfers risk. You pay the premium so that if something bad does happen -- namely, an accident that you were at fault for -- you do not have to go bankrupt.

BASIC PROVISIONS

Second, automobile insurance policies have different levels of "protection." The insured gets the choice of paying a higher premium to obtain more beneficial provisions. Thus, if there is an unfortunate vehicle accident, the insured gets more security, i.e. does not have to pay out of pocket for a rental, does not have to pay out of pocket for medical treatment when liability is in dispute, and so on.

You should be familiar with some of the most basic provisions. One, you should know your bodily injury limits. A policy limit is the monetary limit at which the insurance company will pay for that specific liability. For example, a person with a $50,000 bodily injury limit will not have to pay anything out of pocket if the damages to the injured party do not exceed $50,000. However, if it was a catastrophic injury, the person's assets could be in jeopardy. Therefore, you should consider whether a higher limit makes sense for your particular circumstances.

Two, you should know whether you have rental coverage and medical payments coverage. Rental coverage means that your rental will be paid for while you vehicle is being repaired regardless of fault. Most individuals do not know that their property damage coverage may not extend to the rental. Medical payments coverage, similar to rental, will cover medical treatment up to a certain limit, regardless of fault. Thus, if you need to be transferred to the hospital immediately and undergo emergency treatment, the bills will be paid for by this provision -- even if it is questionable whether you were the cause of the accident.

Three, you should be aware of your uninsured motorist coverage. In California, you have to specifically sign and waive this provision if you do not want it. Uninsured motorist coverage will pay for your medical treatment and bills if the negligent party does not have insurance of his or her own. It's wise to purchase uninsured motorist coverage, because you should always protect yourself first -- and you cannot expect for everyone to abide to the law of the land.

QUESTIONS?

If you are unfamiliar with certain provisions in your insurance policy, you should contact a personal injury attorney. Lawyers in this field have the experience and knowledge on how to advise individuals appropriately. Finally, remember that knowledge is power -- and in this area, it could mean savings too.

When Primary Insurance Isn’t Enough...

Back in law school, one of my professors told a story about a young family-law attorney who agreed to take a catastrophic car accident case involving a big rig. The attorney wasn’t particularly familiar with personal injury law, but the client was a friend of the family and the lawyer wanted to help. It quickly became apparent to the lawyer that the victim’s injuries were severe and that the insurance policy carried by the big rig wasn’t going to come close to covering the hospital bills. Hoping to get what help the policy could provide, the attorney was prepared to settle the case for the value of the truck policy when a friend mentioned that big rig outfits usually carried two different policies, one for the cab and one for the trailer. The lawyer had been about to settle the case for the value of the much smaller cab policy.

Policy Stacking

While mistakes like these are tragically common among lawyers who practice outside of their areas of expertise, that isn’t the moral of this story. Rather, I’d like to draw your attention to the concept of policy stacking. Policy stacking is the practice of collecting from more than one insurance policy for the same underlying claim. The policies in question might be carried by the same company or by different companies, and there might be two or two-hundred (or more as the case may be). Before we get into the details of how this might work in different situations, let’s be clear about one thing; nowhere is the law generally willing to give a person a windfall. In other words, while there are many situations in which an injured party may be able to collect from multiple insurance policies, almost always the total collection is limited by the total amount of damages. A defendant, with rare exception, cannot get paid twice for the same injury.
Umbrella Insurance

Policy stacking can mean a couple of different things. On the one hand, multiple primary policies might be implicated by a single incident. On the other, there might be a conflict between a primary policy, like an auto policy, and an umbrella policy such as typical homeowner’s insurance. In either case the question becomes, which policy or policies are responsible for the loss. To illustrate, let’s look at a standard auto accident situation. In our example situation, Driver B hits Driver A and is liable for Driver A’s injuries. Driver B has a state minimum car insurance policy which will pay a maximum of $15,000. Unfortunately, Driver A’s injuries come out at $100,000 leaving $85,000 in uncovered damages. In this case, the primary policy, the auto insurance, has been exhausted and any secondary coverage must be addressed. Fortunately for Driver A, Driver B carries a homeowner’s umbrella policy with a one million dollar coverage limit. This policy will cover any incident for which Driver B becomes liable, but only after primary insurance has been exhausted. Has this coverage been triggered?

Med-Pay Provisions

Med pay clauses are provisions in an insurance policy that cover medical expenses, up to some given limit; usually regardless of fault. Let’s assume that Driver A had a $5000 med-pay provision in their policy. Even though Driver B was at fault in the accident, Driver A can still collect this $5000 from their own policy. After this $5000 is paid out, can Driver A now seek coverage from Driver B’s umbrella policy?

Uninsured and Underinsured Coverage

Maybe, but there still might be more to the puzzle. I’ve written about uninsured and underinsured coverage in the past, but it’s implicated again here. Let’s assume that Driver A elected optional uninsured coverage in the amount of $30,000 when they purchased their own policy. This coverage will step in and compensate them for losses not wholly covered by another driver who was at fault in an accident. However, it only partially stacks; Driver B’s $15,000 in coverage will be deducted against it; meaning that Driver A’s uninsured coverage will only pay an additional $15,000 in our example.

So Where Do We Stand?

Based on the example we’ve been working through, Driver B’s primary auto policy will pay $15,000, Driver A’s primary auto policy will pay $20,000 ($5,000 med-pay and $15,000 UIM) leaving $65,000 in uncollected damages to Driver A. Assuming no other policies are implicated, this is where Driver B’s umbrella policy will finally step in and take over coverage; filling the gap left by the other layers of insurance.


As this example should make clear, insurance stacking can potentially become very complex. In large commercial policies, the situation gets even worse. Policy stacking issues went all the way to the California Supreme Court back in 2012 and look set to return there based on a 2013 State Appellate court ruling. While commercial coverage is beyond the scope of this article, it’s important to recognize that the question of which, of many, possible insurance policies might be liable for a given injury isn’t necessarily an easy one to answer; and, as with many other aspects of personal injury law, experience matters when it comes to finding coverage for severely injured accident victims.

Insurance Bad Faith

Insurance Bad Faith Law Gets an Update

California has long been considered a benchmark state with regard to the development of insurance bad faith law. What California pioneers, many other states often implement. As such, updates to California’s bad faith landscape have wide reaching impact on the larger body of insurance bad faith law. For consumers and attorneys alike, maintaining at least a basic understanding of the state of the law in California can have significant benefits.

What is bad faith?

For the layperson, bad faith law essentially makes insurance companies liable if they treat their clients unfairly. What exactly constitutes unfair treatment is complex, and currently under some flux, but the summation is as follows; implied in every contract is a commitment to treat the other parties fairly as the contract unfolds. Known as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, this provision ,imposed on every contract by operation of law, requires parties to act in good faith as they carry out their duties under the agreement. In playground terms: No Cheating.

In the insurance setting, the list of things that constitute “cheating” by an insurance company is fairly long. Some types of bad faith are defined in specific laws while others are simply enforced by courts based on reasonable expectations. Some of the most common mistakes an insurer might make, and thus leading to potential liability, include:

1. Withholding information from an insured, the beneficiary of a policy.


2. Refusing to settle a claim for which liability is reasonably clear, otherwise known as “gambling with a client’s money.”


3. Low-balling, or giving extremely unreasonable, settlement offers.


4. Wasting everyone’s time with baseless delays; legal or procedural.

Third-party rights

In the world of insurance litigation, a third-party is anyone who stands to collect a benefit, such as monetary payment, from an insurance contract owned by someone else. This might include hospitals which provide treatment to an injured person based on an expectation of later receiving payment out of an insurance settlement or the injured plaintiff themself in any lawsuit that may ultimately be covered by a defendant’s insurance policy. While the definition of a third-party is relatively clear, what rights those entities may have has changed somewhat over the years.

In August the California Supreme Court ruled that, while third-parties cannot sue an insurance company for bad faith unless they have some contractual relationship with that insurance company, other avenues may cover the same ground. In other words, bad faith is a legal remedy reserved for people who are actually contracted with an insurance company and is designed to help those people gain the full benefits of their arrangements. That is, the policies for which consumers pay good money for, should give a benefit in the event of an occurrence. But this understanding of bad faith law does not preclude lawsuits based on other legal theories just because the underlying facts might support both types of suits.

Other avenues

The Court’s ruling leaves open some potentially novel avenues by which third-parties, typically the plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits, can pursue insurance companies for bad-faith like practices, even in circumstances traditionally blocked by limitations to third-party suits. In another recent decision, a California Court of Appeal further expanded these options when it allowed a third-party to sue a defendant’s insurance company for bad faith, failure to notify the injured party about a claims reporting deadline, under a med-pay clause of a policy for which primary liability had already been settled.

Plaintiff’s bottom line

While the full extent of these rulings will not be known until more cases come down the pipe dealing with these issues, recent rulings may provide injured plaintiffs with an expanded range of possible options for recovering their damages in some situations. This ultimately makes it more likely that your attorney will be able to get you the settlement to which you are entitled. Stay tuned as we continue to monitor the ongoing developments in this critical area of personal injury law.

Caps on damage awards hurt patients

In July of 2010, six-week old Mia Chavez was taken to an L.A. emergency room with a worsening cough. Her doctor, believing that the cough was a symptom of the common cold, sent Mia home with antibiotics. A week later the infant died during her second visit to the ER; the cause, pertussis, a flu-like strain of whooping cough on the rise in L.A. County. Public health officials had previously circulated warnings about the illness, warnings of which Mia’s doctors were well aware. Tragically, none of the simple tests for whooping cough were run and the antibiotics which were prescribed probably decreased the tiny infant’s capacity to fight the disease on her own.

In January of 2009, 17 year old Olivia Cull walked up the steps of Mattel Children's Hospital UCLA in Westwood for a routine heart catheterization, the last in a long line of procedures designed to correct a minor birth defect. Olivia, a top student already admitted to Smith College, never left the hospital. An intern, unlicensed to practice medicine at UCLA, removed Olivia’s heart catheter without supervision and Olivia slipped into a coma. A few days later while parents Robert and Joyce Cull struggled with the decision to terminate life support, Olivia’s 11 year old sister crawled into the hospital bed with her; a nurse sobbed in the corner.

The thread that ties these tragic stories together does not end with the malpractice that caused their deaths, but extends to the gross undervaluation of their lives under current California law. The girls were each subject to the inequities created by a California which was passed in 1975 in an attempt at insurance reform. The law, known as the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA – Cal. Civ. Code 3333.2), limits non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $250,000 – the legally imposed value of a child’s life in cases of doctor negligence.

Manufactured insurance scare

Enacted in the face of a now discredited insurance industry panic about the rapidly rising costs of malpractice insurance, MICRA was proposed as a an ineffective solution to a problem that did not exist. In the 12 years that followed the passage of the law, insurance rates for malpractice skyrocketed an astounding 190%, stopped only by the much more sensible passage of proposition 103 in 1988 which brought malpractice rates under the regulation of the California Department of Insurance. Despite the scandal surrounding MICRA it has continued unchanged for almost 40 years, never once adjusted for inflation; a flaw which has reduced the economic impact of the $250,000 cap by about 75% over the last three decades.

An abject failure

While targeted at ballooning malpractice insurance premiums, MICRA has done nothing to help the doctors who often fight for it, but has instead served to line the pockets of California’s malpractice insurance providers. Under California law, insurance companies are required to maintain a reserve fund for use in paying future claims. Medical malpractice carriers in the State, however, have used increasing profits to build up enormous reserves despite the fact that they routinely over-estimate future claims. Each of the three largest carriers in the state have, at least once over the course of the last ten years, carried a reserve account as much as 10 times larger than the required amount. In fact, despite their claims about the growing costs of medical malpractice suits, California carriers pay out an average of only 25% of their gross receipts to such claims, holding the rest for lawyer’s fees, administrative costs, and profits.

National efforts

Despite the complete failure of MICRA to reduce insurance rates in California, and the tragic consequences disproportionately dealt to the poor, unemployed, elderly, and children, proponents of such caps have taken the fight nationwide. After MICRA, 23 states enacted some sort of pain and suffering damages cap and bills have recently circled in Washington that would impose a similar Federal cap, ostensibly as part of the national effort to reduce healthcare costs. Ironically, many of the proponents of such a cap themselves earn more per year then they allow for a lifetime of patient pain and suffering.

Doctors’ groups such as the AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists have been vocal supporters of caps on a patients legal rights while simultaneously opposing similar caps on their own ability to sue health insurance companies for unfair practices; a conflict only recently recognized by the AMA when it chose to drop efforts to advocate against caps on insurance company lawsuits, instead focusing exclusively on limiting patient lawsuits nationally.

Bottom line

Olivia’s and Mia’s heartbreaking stories are not isolated incidents. Medical malpractice is a growing problem which kills as many as 390,000 people annually, making it the most deadly national health concern after heart disease and cancer. Yet many victims are unable to even find a lawyer capable of shouldering the substantial costs associated with the complex legal proceedings surrounding medical malpractice cases; costs which can routinely run over $100,000 not counting legal fees.

It is time to revisit MICRA in California to ensure that patients, not insurance companies’ profits, are protected under the law.

Private Settlements Are a Big Risk

If you are the victim of a car accident and are wondering whether you should accept the other party’s offer to settle privately, without involving the insurances companies, you might turn to Google for advice. Unfortunately, many of the results that turn up are user comments on non-legal forums where non-attorneys attempt to explain the complications of a vehicle collision. Despite this dearth of expert advice, many people keep trying, driven by a fear that their insurance rates will be raised if they report the accident to the authorities.

While private settlements might seem like a convenient way to avoid the potential hassles of dealing with insurance adjusters and claims processors, these types of arrangements are almost always a bad idea; at least without some input from an experienced attorney. There are just too many potential complications of which many people may be unaware. The following are some examples of the types of problems you might encounter during a private settlement attempt.

Who’s at fault?

California follows what is known as the Pure Comparative Fault Rule. Under our system an accident victim can file a lawsuit against the person at fault, even if the victim partially caused the accident. For example, let’s say you're in a car accident with another driver. At trial the jury determines that you were 10% at fault for the accident and that your total damages are $100,000. Under California law, you’ll be able to collect 90% of those damages from the other party; or $90,000. Of course, you may also have to pay them for the 10% of damages you caused them.

The situation gets dramatically more complex in cases where the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault. Without qualified legal advice, you may not know for sure who is legally responsible for your injuries or for how much each party will ultimately be liable. Trying to guess can be costly.

Damage calculations

Estimating exactly what a settlement is worth, poses a challenge even for experienced attorneys. Questions abound, such as: will the injuries create a permanent disability, have the full extent of the injuries been discovered, and how lost wages or other income should, be calculated.  There is a lot to consider, and this list barely scratches the surface. Without expert advice, your estimate of the damages or injuries might be way off the mark. Ultimately this means that you may be accepting an offer which grossly under compensates you for your injuries.

Insurance misconceptions

Many people considering a private settlement are worried that their insurance rates will skyrocket if they report an accident, even one in which they were not at fault. I wish that there was an easy way to settle this question but the truth is the situation is a bit more complicated. How an accident will affect your rates is determined by the particular insurance company involved. For some companies, rate increases are only assessed against drivers who are at-fault in a collision. In other situations the severity of the incident or the amount of damage is a critical factor. In today’s competitive insurance market, some insurers actually market policies that include accident forgiveness clauses designed to prevent rate increases associated with certain types of collisions. Ultimately you will have to check with your particular insurer for details. However, it is unwise to attempt a private settlement merely out of fear that your rates will go up.

Notification

While they may not raise your rates for reporting an accident in which you were not primarily at fault, not reporting an accident can give the insurance company a reason not to pay for any later claims you may decide to file for the incident. This is because most policies have a notification clause that requires you to give them a fair opportunity to duly investigate the situation. If you do not tell them in time, and the delay ends up hurting their ability to protect themselves legally, they may be able to avoid paying on your claim.

Don't forget the DMV

While not reporting an incident to your insurance company is a matter of choice – albeit with some consequences for choosing poorly – reporting to the DMV is not optional. Under California law any accident with over $750 in damage or with any personal injury – no matter how minor - must be reported within 10 days of the incident. Both parties must file this report, regardless of fault. Furthermore, if any party was uninsured at the time of the incident, the DMV will still impose sanctions on that person including suspending their license for one year.

Dishonesty, double-dipping, and fraud

Even if you avoid the minefield presented by the above issues, there’s sometimes no accounting for human ingenuity. Without the benefit of deep insurance pockets, you may have a very difficult time actually collecting on your private settlement; especially if you agreed to take payments. Personal checks are often no good, and by the time you figure this out it might be too late to find the person. In every accident you should always take down insurance and driver’s license details from all parties involved, in addition to taking pictures of the scene and any damage. This way, even if you accept a private settlement up front, you’ll have some recourse if things go south later on.

Hire a lawyer

Hire an attorney! I know this might seem suspect coming from an attorney, but I hope I've convinced you that it’s good advice. Settling your accident privately is legally and financially risky and the motivations for doing so are weak at best. Get the legal help you need and avoid years of potential headache down the road. Your attempt to save a few bucks in the short term might end up costing you everything.

Driving Without a License in California

Driver's Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants?

A new California law took effect January 1, 2013 giving certain undocumented residents the right to obtain a driver’s license. Signed by Governor Brown late last year, AB 2189 authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue licenses to individuals who qualify for the new Federal work-visa program developed by President Obama. Specifically, the bill directs the DMV to accept as proof of residency, whatever documentation the Federal Government provides in connection with the Deferred Action immigration program.

Many unlicensed drivers still on the road

But, California lawmakers aren't finished with the issue just yet. While AB 2189 authorizes licenses for a large number of undocumented residents, some sources estimate that as many as one million unlicensed drivers still populate California roadways, most as a result of their undocumented status. A new bill, AB 60, seeks to rectify this situation by authorizing driver’s licenses for most of the remaining undocumented residents, however some legislators oppose the move and the bill’s future is uncertain. So, where does that leave average drivers?

Steep penalties

Driving without a license on a public road in California is against the law. California Vehicle Code section 12500 requires that California drivers possess a valid license issued by the state in which they live and authorizing their use of the class of vehicle they are operating. While you can only be criminally convicted of a misdemeanor for violation of this law, the practical consequences can be severe; especially if you are involved in an accident while driving without a license. First, even misdemeanor convictions will appear on your criminal record, potentially haunting your future efforts to get a job, obtain affordable car-insurance, or apply for certain benefits. Second, California’s financial responsibility laws may tangentially affect your situation.

Under California Civil Code sections 3333.3 and 3333.4, individuals who are injured in an incident involving the operation or use of a motor vehicle, may be precluded from suing for certain types of damages (notably pain and suffering) if they are not properly insured; even if someone else is clearly at fault. Because most insurance companies will not issue a policy to a person who does not have a valid driver’s license, unlicensed drivers who are involved in a car accident are likely to find themselves unable to collect much money from the other party. In other words, if you don't have a driver’s license, you probably can't get insurance, which means you probably can’t get paid by the guy who hits you in a car accident.

Get a license

While there are a number of nuances to this law, and courts are continually interpreting its wording, the warning should be clear. Driving without a license is a very bad idea. If you are undocumented, and do not qualify for the newly expanded licensing program, the best approach is to avoid driving. Take public transportation or find a way to carpool whenever possible. For those of you who are eligible, take the time to get your license and maintain proper insurance on your vehicle. The costs of failing to comply with these laws far outweigh the risks.

That being said, if you are charged with driving without a license, or if you are injured while operating an uninsured vehicle, check with an attorney immediately to see what your options are. There is no substitute for good legal advice in every situation.