PAP Liability case study

[CuriousGeorge]

Sam gets injured as a passenger in an auto accident and sues for $110K in costs related to his injuries.

Why isn't there any discussion of Part B - Medical Payments in the case study? Did med-pay not apply for some reason? I would have thought that this was a med-pay issue, with Liability covering what med-pay didn't.

[dukelampard]

Is he suing the driver of the car he was in or the driver of the other car?

If the former, med pay (from the policy on the car he was in) would apply. If the latter, the claim would be against the other driver's liability coverage.

[actuarialista]

Curiousgeorge, I see what you are saying. For anyone who hasn't seen the example, Sam is a passenger in his own car and George is driving when the accident occurs. Sam is injured and sues George. Sam gets a large award and his Part A pays first because he owns the car. George's Part A is excess. There is still another $5,000 (after both Part A's are exhausted), which George must personally pay. I have no idea why Sam's Part B does not contribute. It does take 4 years for the suit to be settled and Part B has a 3-year limit, but why wouldn't Sam's Part B go ahead and pay right after the accident. It should pay regardless of liability, right? I don't get it.

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by actuarialista

Curiousgeorge, I see what you are saying. For anyone who hasn't seen the example, Sam is a passenger in his own car and George is driving when the accident occurs. Sam is injured and sues George. Sam gets a large award and his Part A pays first because he owns the car. George's Part A is excess. There is still another $5,000 (after both Part A's are exhausted), which George must personally pay. I have no idea why Sam's Part B does not contribute. It does take 4 years for the suit to be settled and Part B has a 3-year limit, but why wouldn't Sam's Part B go ahead and pay right after the accident. It should pay regardless of liability, right? I don't get it.

Thanks for the more detailed summary. I wasn't clear on whether Part B was ignored to simplify the Case Study, or Part B didn't apply. I hadn't thought about the 3-year limit on Part B, but I would expect that limitation to apply to the application for benefits, not to delays due to lawsuits, etc.