Why Do Car Insurance Companies In The United States Refuse Car Accident Claims for Car Policyholders?
Unbelievable: Illinois Court Awarded $11,573:55 Car Accident Claim To Andrew Koziol Despite His Breach Of Car Insurance Policy
car accident claim An Excited Litigant
1.0 Car Insurance Application Form: How Court Awarded $11,573:55 Car Accident Claim To Illinois Car Accident Survival Despite His Breach Of Car Insurance Policy
1.1 Audience and courtroom observers have been thrown into shock on the 1st day of February 2019, when the Appellate Court of Illinois awarded the sum of $11,573:55 being a car accident declare to a auto accident survival, Andrew Koziol in a breach of car insurance contractinvolving his insurance plan company, Direct Auto Insurance Company (DAIC).
1.2 The Presiding Justice, Honorable Justice Hall was mentioned to have awarded $11,573:55 vehicle accident claims to Andrew Koziol on the groundwork that his omission of quintessential information on his automobile insurance plan utility structure was once now not sufficient for Direct Auto Insurance Company (DAIC) to cancel his car insurance plan policy.
1.3 This view used to be contrary to the prerequisites attached to the automobile insurance plan policy which absolved (DAIC) of any vehicle accident declare in the event of any illustration or facts provided with the aid of Andrew Koziol in the automobile insurance plan software shape was once discovered to be false, omitted, or has cloth misstatement.
1.4 A reliable supply disclosed that Andrew Koziol had received a vehicle insurance plan coverage from (DAIC), and whilst he used to be driving, it was once said that he had a collision with a public utility pole someday in 2013.
1.5 It used to be gathered that (DAIC) denied Andrew Koziol's automobile accident claims regarding bodily harm he sustained in the vehicle accident.
1.6 Andrew Koziol was suggested to have approached a trial court earlier than Honorable Justice David B. Atkins of the Circuit Court of Cook County soliciting a vehicle accident claim.
1.7 At the end of the trial, Honorable Justice David B. Atkins was once said to have awarded the sum of $11,573:55 to Andrew Koziol being a automobile accident declare for a breach of car insurance plan contract involving (DAIC).
1.8 It used to be discovered that (DAIC) approached the Appellate Court of Illinois for a evaluation but the justices of the aforementioned courtroom were pronounced to have concluded that the Circuit Court of Cook County (trial court) applied their reasonings while getting into a vehicle accident declare judgment in favor of Andrew Koziol.
Why Auto Insurance Companies In The United State Of America Denied Car Policyholders' Car Accidents Claims?
(a) Car accident claim has generated a lot of legal controversies between vehicle insurance policyholders and automobile insurance companies in the United State of America in current times.
(b) Information gathered reflected that auto insurance plan organizations had attributed the following motives for denying vehicle accident claim organizations in the United State of America.
(i) Expired Insurance Premium: An car insurance company is now not predicted to be accountable to pay a car accident declare the place the car policyholder is indebted and unable to pay the insurance plan premium as when due.
(ii) Automobile insurance plan agencies can deny vehicle accident claims of auto policyholders where the contents of the statement web page never supply coverage for such automobile disasters. At-fault auto driver with a personal vehicle insurance coverage should not expect his automobile insurance employer to repair his automobile except he has uninsured automobile coverage.
(iii) Breach Of Car Insurance Policy Terms And Conditions: A vehicle policyholder with a personal vehicle coverage coverage now not count on a auto accident declare in the event of a avenue accident while riding a business vehicle.
(iv) In latest times, a automobile insurance plan employer denies an vehicle policyholder automobile accident declare due to the fact of inadequate aiding files like doctors’ medical reports, police accident reports, and proof of medical exams (x-ray).
(v) A vehicle insurance plan business enterprise reserved the sole proper to deny a automobile policyholder's vehicle accident declare where the behavior of the insurance plan provider is fraudulent.
For example, the falsification of necessary data on automobile accident claims may additionally lead to an outright claim rejection.
2.0 The Car Insurance Policy Between Andrew Koziol And Direct Auto Insurance Company
2.1 Andrew Koziol used to be reported to have bought a automobile insurance plan policy on April 8, 2013, from Direct Auto Insurance Company (DAIC) to grant insurance for his “2008 Dodge Charger” motor car.
2.2 All the indispensable carinsurance utility forms had been dully attended to via Andrew Koziol and submitted via his agent (DAIC).
2.3 It was once gathered that the prerequisites connected to the car insurance coverage were exhibited in the vehicle insurance plan utility varieties to mirror the powers, limitations, rights, and privileges of each Andrew Koziol and (DAIC) in the automobile insurance plan policy.
2.4 One of the prerequisites as included in the car insurance utility types noted certainly that (DAIC) relied totally on the statements provided through Andrew Koziol in his vehicle insurance software types to problem a auto insurance plan policy to him.
2.5 In addition, any other condition in addition stated that (DAIC) would now not be sure to grant vehicle accident claims if any representation contained in the vehicle insurance plan software forms was once found to be false, misleading, or even includes a direct misrepresentation, omission, concealment of facts, or flawed statements.
2.6 (DAIC) also referred to in the situation that it had the strength to declare any car insurance plan policy null and void furnished such coverage contains the ingredient of cloth misrepresentation, false, omission, concealment of facts, and fallacious statements.
2.7 It was further discovered that Andrew Koziol was suggested to have recommended all the automobile insurance plan application varieties to seal the vehicle insurance plan deal.
2.8 Information printed honestly that while Andrew Koziol was riding his “2008 Dodge Charger” vehicle on July 21, 2013, he had an accident with a public utility pole and his car was stated to have been damaged, and Andrew he used to be fortunate adequate to have survived in the stated motor auto accident.
2.9 Immediately after the motor automobile accident, Andrew Koziol was once said to have filed a automobile accident claim below his automobile insurance plan coverage with (DAIC).
2.10 It used to be stated that (DAIC) investigated Andrew Koziol's motor accident, concluded to deny him a auto accident claim over the stated street auto accident and even rescinded the entire vehicle insurance policy.
2.11 As a result of the above, on September 25, 2014, Andrew Koziol used to be pronounced to have contacted his auto claims attorney to institute a breach of contract action in opposition to Direct Auto Insurance Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
2.12 In the said breach of contract criminal suit, Andrew Koziol used to be stated to have sought a auto accident claim to include a auto accident bodily damage declare and property damage liability claim from Direct Auto Insurance Company for its refusal to supply coverage for his accident.
2.13 Conversely, on November 19, 2014, Direct Auto Insurance Company was once pronounced to have also filed a declaratory judgment motion thru its auto claims legal professional against Andrew Koziol.
2.14 In the stated suit, Direct Auto Insurance Company contended that Andrew Koziol supplied fabric misrepresentation on his auto insurance plan application forms at some point of the acquisition of his automobile insurance plan policy.
2.15 Direct Auto Insurance Company argued that those cloth misrepresentations had been fraudulent which had rendered the car insurance coverage of Andrew Koziol technically void ab initio.
Car Insurance Application Form
3.0 Pleadings Of The Auto Claims Attorney Hired By Direct Auto Insurance Company (DAIC) For Car Insurance Policy’s Rescission.
3.1 While the attraction was once before the Appellate Court of Illinois, (DAIC) was once reported to have employed the services of an auto claims attorney, namely, James P. Newman, of James P. Newman Associates, LLC to prosecute the overview case in the optimal court.
3.2 Findings conducted printed that the argument adduced by way of the auto claims lawyer employed by (DAIC) before the Appellate Court to deny Andrew Koziol auto claims lawyer was that he had absolutely failed to disclose, in his auto insurance software forms, the existence of his parents’ motor car, and the stated motor automobile used to be said to have been registered to and stored in his home.
3.3 Furthermore, the auto claims attorney hired by using (DAIC) argued that the failure of Andrew Koziol to divulge facts about these extra automobiles in his household, and in his automobile insurance utility varieties had rendered the whole car insurance plan coverage null and void, and of no criminal effect.
3.4 Conversely, Andrew Koziol was suggested to have refuted the argument adduced by means of the auto claims attorney hired with the aid of (DAIC) in the context that his dad and mom resided in the equal building but now not the equal unit, and that those portions of data had been disclosed in his auto insurance plan software forms.
3.5 While difficult the pleadings superior by using the auto claims lawyer employed through (DAIC), Andrew Koziol was once stated to have disclosed that his parents had been specially excluded from his car insurance plan policy.
3.6 In addition, Andrew Koziol exhibited earlier than the Appellate court docket of Illinois that (DAIC) failed to furnish any proof that he ever drove the 2002 Ford Explorer XLS, which belonged to his parents with a separate vehicle insurance coverage from State Farm, or that his mother and father ever drove his “2008 Dodge Charger” motor vehicle.
Auto Claims Attorney Near Me: How To Access An Auto Claims Attorney In The United States Of America?
(a) In recent times, the techniques involved in the region and identification of capable auto claims attorneys in the United State of America to cope with complex auto accident claims-related cases have no longer been handy to figure out.
(b) Today in the United State, roads accidents victims, most specifically those that involved bodily accidents have experienced a lot of difficulties having access to auto claims attorneys who apprehend the prison languages of Judges and have the criminal technicalities to win complicated cases of roads accident.
(c) Findings conducted revealed that auto claims attorneys close to me can be located in the following ways:
(i) Community Enquiries – Under this category, auto policyholder is anticipated to make inquiries about auto claims attorneys from the neighborhood most mainly from the human beings who would possibly have encountered the same or similar street accident problems.
Victims of road accidents in the previous are in higher positions to refer auto claims attorneys to a road accident casualty.
(ii) Google Searches: With the help of Google searches on the internet, road accident victims can get admission to auto claims attorneys who are closer to them and who can manage their complicated criminal problems.
(iii) Professional Associates Referrals: Friends, families, and other expert associates of auto claims attorneys could be reference points to victims of avenue accidents in the United State.
Inquiries from authorities like Accountants, Medical Doctors, and Marketers in the place of dwelling of the avenue accident victims ought to be of assist in the identification of in a position auto claims attorneys.
Auto Claims Attorneys Reviewing Car Insurance Policy
4.0 The Judgement Of The Court Of Appeals Of Illinois On Omission Of Vital Information On Car Insurance Application Forms
4.1 While making his final judgment in the case of breach of contract lawsuit instituted by using Andrew Koziol in opposition to Direct Auto Insurance Company (DAIC), the presiding judge namely, Justice Hall said that (DAIC) had introduced nothing in its pleadings to support its conclusion that additional humans dwelling with Andrew Koziol who had been not drivers his automobile expanded the hazard being insured against.
4.2 Furthermore, the presiding judge was once suggested to have stated that (DAIC) never adduced evidence that Andrew Koziol’s parents ever drove his vehicle, nor was once there any proof that Andrew Koziol drove the car of his parents.
4.3 Information gathered mirrored that the presiding judge was pronounced to have ruled that (DAIC) had not presented evidence that it would no longer have issued the car insurance plan coverage if the extra vehicle had been disclosed in the car insurance application forms, except for the increased premium, as justification for the rescission.
4.4 In aiding the arguments advanced by the auto claims attorneys employed with the aid of Andrew Koziol, the Presiding Judge, Justice Hall, stated that the omission of an additional automobile whilst submitting the vehicle insurance utility varieties was no longer a cloth misrepresentation as pondered through part 154 of the Code.
4.5 In awarding the sum of $11,573.55 auto accident claims in want of Andrew Koziol, the three panels of justices have been suggested to have affirmed the pronouncements of the Circuit Court of Cook County used to be affirmed.
An Auto Claim Attorney
5.0 Editorial Opinions: The Impacts Of Omitted And Vital Information On The Car Insurance Application Form
5.1 The wishes to specific contrary opinions to the pronouncements of the three Panels of Justice namely, Justice Hall, Justice Lampkin, and Justice Rochford sitting in the Appellate Court of Illinois, in the case of breach of contract felony suit between Andrew Koziol and Direct Auto Insurance Company are pertinent in many ways.
5.2 One of the motives to keep a contrary view to the verdict of this court has been perceived from the statistics that the court docket agreed with (DAIC) that Andrew Koziol completely failed to divulge records about his parents’ 2002 Ford vehicle in his vehicle insurance software types with (DAIC).
5.3 It will be more logical to allege that Andrew Koziol breached the auto insurance contract with (DAIC) in the experience that he failed to appreciate the prerequisites connected to the car insurance plan application forms.
5.4 One of the conditions expressly noted that (DAIC) would not be bound to furnish coverage if any illustration or data provided by using Andrew Koziol in the car insurance plan application varieties used to be discovered to be false, omitted, or has fabric misstatement.
5.5 When Andrew Koziol acquired the auto insurance plan coverage from (DAIC), statistics printed virtually that he endorsed all the phrases and stipulations as noted in the vehicle insurance plan utility varieties of the insurance plan deals.
Those endorsements indicated that he used to be bound with the aid of the stipulations of the insurance plan deals.
5.6 When an impartial thought juxtaposes the settlement of the courtroom that Andrew Koziol disregarded critical facts on his vehicle insurance plan application varieties with the endorsement of Andrew Koziol on the stipulations related to neglected statistics on his car insurance plan application forms, it will be wise to say that the pronouncements of the court were not honest to Direct Auto Insurance Company.
5.7 From the prison point of view, a court need to no longer approbate and reprobate at the same time. A court ought to avoid its criminal somersault.
5.8 Direct Auto Insurance Company has the felony proper to enchantment the pronouncements of the three Panel of Justice namely, Justice Hall, Justice Lampkin, and Justice Rochford in the best court.
5.9 The criminal implication of omission of vital facts on the auto insurance plan utility forms has been to render the vehicle insurance plan coverage null and void, of no prison effect.
6.0 Advice To Car Policyholders In America: The Concept Of Conditions Versus The Principle Of Utmost Good Faith
6.1 This area is designed to train car insurance plan policyholders in the United State of America on the thought of conditions, and the principle of utmost true faith as it relates to the case of Andrew Koziol, and Direct Auto Insurance Company.
6.2 In phrases of definition, prerequisites are provisions in a car insurance policy that require a car policyholder to comply with certain requirements to acquire coverage underneath the policy.
A vehicle insurance plan company reserve the proper to deny compensation in the event a auto insurance plan policy failed to admire these provisions in the policy
6.3 In the case under review, Direct Auto Insurance Company had attached a condition to the vehicle insurance coverage that it would no longer be certain to provide insurance if the records provided by using Andrew Koziol in the auto insurance software types was discovered to be false, omitted, or has fabric misstatement.
6.4 Andrew Koziol furnished Direct Auto Insurance Company with omitted facts in the utility form violating the precept of utmost good faith.
6.5 Car insurance buyers in the United State are recommended to furnish correct facts while filling all varieties with their car insurance plan agencies to avoid pointless court battles.
6.0 Readers’ Opinions - Post Your Comments
6.1 Readers are enjoined to categorical their non-public opinions under as it impacts Direct Auto Insurance Company and Andrew Koziol.
Post a Comment for "Why Do Car Insurance Companies In The United States Refuse Car Accident Claims for Car Policyholders?"