I think if you're a reasonably careful driver those are reasonable limits.
In the scenario you describe, yes, I think the injured party's insurer would
indeed try (and likely succeed) in seeing that the limits of your liability
police were used up before they stepped in--or alternatively that they were
reimbursed up to your policy limits. Procedure for coordination of benefits
is usually a part of any medical insurance policy.

From what I've heard and read, if you carry a reasonably high liability
limit even if you're at fault in the accident many claimants and their
insurance companies will not opt for suing for additional damages--they
figure it's sufficient to just take what they can get with reasonable ease.
However, if you're very concerned about this you should look into what's
called an excess liability or umbrella policy.

Thus said last_permutation@yahoo.com (OracleofBugtussle):

Medical insurance generally has a subrogation provision which would
make your liability insurance primary.  Either your insurance would
pay, or else the victim's medical insurance would pay but the eventual
settlement from your liability insurance would go to reimburse the
medical insurance company.

Sounds about right.

They could try to come after your assets, yes.

Having none is illegal most places and hardly wise.  It depends not on
how safe a driver you are, but on what assets you have to protect.  If
you have significant vulnerable assets (not counting things like IRAs
which are generally protected from judgments and in bankruptcy) I'd
consider $1m (via an umbrella policy) to be a reasonable minimum to let
me sleep at night, but some people feel more comfortable with a bit more
risk.

They do (and should) go after the person who caused the injury.

Many states have a required minimum. Many people who just say "give me car
insurance" might be surprised at how low the minimum is (I think my state is
$60k). You can usually protect personal assets from the John Edwards types
by carrying extra insurance for them to pick at.

I can (unfortunately) give you some first-hand experience -- I'm in
management at an auto insurer AND my wife is currently a claimant from
an auto accident where another driver has left her permanently
disabled.

Her medical bills are being paid as follows:

The first set of medical bills were paid out of the Medical Payments /
PIP coverage on our auto policy, even though she was not at fault.
Terms on Med Pay and PIP vary signifcantly from state to state, so
your mileage may vary.

Everything since those benefits were exhausted has been submitted to
our health insurance.  Our health insurance provider has a right to
seek reimbursement from the at-fault driver.  Technically, I suppose
our health insurer has a right to refuse to pay for accident-related
stuff, but so far (knock on wood) that hasn't been a problem.

We're currently suing the at-fault driver for those medical expenses
not covered by health insurance, lost wages, etc.   When we win the
lawsuit (or when the lawyers come to some sort of pre-trial
agreement), the at fault driver's insurer will pick up the tab up to
the limits of his Bodily Injury coverage on his auto policy.

When we blow through his BI limits, he can seek coverage from his
personal umbrella liability policy, if he has one.

When our official damages from the lawsuit/settlement exceed his
available insurance limits, we can then seek reimbursement under the
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage on our auto policy.  UM/UIM
coverage is another one that varies significantly by state, so your
experience could differ somewhat.  Our auto insurer would then gain
the right to seek reimbursement from the at-fault driver.

And, when that isn't enough to cover damages, we'll be left with trying to
collect any remainder from the at-fault driver directly, or with other
legal tools (garnishment, etc.).

Other than having to muck around with some legal mumbo-jumbo, the
at-fault driver is generally insulated from the hassle, while his
insurer is involved.   He won't be on the hook for any bills until his
insurer bows out, either because of his limits being exhausted, or
because the legal process has reached its conclusion (in our case,
probably 4 or 5 years after the accident).

Most injuries from auto accidents generally run up bills in the 4-5
figure neighborhood, so limits of 100/300 would protect you from those
situations.   However, when you start talking about death or permanent
disability... the compensatory damages can easily hit or pass the $1
million neighborhood.

If you have assets to protect, or expect to have assets to protect in
the future, getting 250/500 limits on auto, and getting a personal
umbrella policy with limits of at least $1m is probably something
worth considering.

And, getting the highest UIM limits you can is also a pretty good idea
to consider, to protect yourself from being hit by a driver who
doesn't have the million dollar umbrella (among other things).

You are applying two different things to the same coverage.  I
can understand why, it is a bit convoluted. If you live in a
state with no fault insurance laws, the insurance of the owner of
the vehicle in which any person is ridding pays the hospital
bills up to the policies personal injury limit, say 15K.  If a
person in YOUR vehicle owns an automobile, that is insured, his
insurance then cover his hospital bills to his policy limit then
YOUR policy kicks in.  There is no subrogation on those bills.
If however you  hit a motorcycle on which no fault insurance is
NOT available, than that persons medical insurance will pay the
cost, the same as if you lived in any state that does not have no
fault insurance.  In that case his medical insurance carrier will
be eligible for subrogation.  Liability covers all other
liability resulting from any accident of which you are deemed to
be ay fault.  I. E. the car, house, or utility pole you hit and
any personal inquiry awards..  In your example, 100K/300K is NOT
per person, as you may believe. It is 300k accumulative.  If one
person obtained a judgment of 300K, you policy would pay.  If
three people obtained a judgment  of 100K each your policy would
pay the total.  IF however two people obtained a judgment of 200K
the first person to get paid by you insurance company would get
200K BUT the second would only get 100K.  He than could go after
your assets for the 100k balance. That is one reason lawyers will
tell you not to place ownership of your vehicles in your and you
wife's names.  A winning litigant can not take half of the things
you both own as 'tenants in the entireties' like your home, bank
account or other vehicles.  

Personally I am well off with many assets so therefore I carry
$1,000,000 liability.   The cost is really not that much more
annually than 300K.  Because I own more than one vehicle, I have
my vehicle coverage 'stacked' as well, which in effect doubles
the individual vehicles coverage by allowing the coverage on one
vehicle to cover the other, if needed.  To protect myself from
others I also carry underinsured and uninsured motorist
coverage's.  In the event of a major judgment against me I carry
a 5,000,000 umbrella policy that covers any judgment above my
insurance limits on my cars, or my properties or the collectible
vehicles I own that is covered on another policy.  I is important
to take the time to speak to your agent and make sure the
coverage you have is the coverage you NEED, for your situation.  

I belong to a motorcycle club in PA.  When I joined not one
member of that club realized that PA's no vault laws did NOT
apply to motorcycles driver, only their passenger and many riders
where riding uninsured because they didn't have medical insurance

mike hunt

The laws for coverage varies widely by state.  I currently work in an
unnamed insurance office.  All I do everyday is process medical bills.
By the 100's of thousands, just for my state only. It's a huge
production, and it takes a small forest to keep our paper stocks
supplied(or a tractor trailer every week or so).  It's the only
business I know of or place I've worked in with an infinite amount of
work and expansion.  It's really disgusting on what this translates to
for the state of affairs on transporatation and the likes.  And this
is just medical bills I know of.  There's more "accidents"(notice the
radio doesn't even use this word anymore) that don't require medical,
just collision.  but you know that by the rows of autobody shops on
streets.
I also get bills for ambulances, lifeflights, etc.  I think the
minimum in this state is 10k protection, but if you get airlifted out,
that's a cool 10,000 dollars right there.  They don't do that for
free!  And the hospital expenses are exponential after that(if it's
that bad, in the 100's of grands).  I doubt this person will ever pay
the insurance company enough money in coverage that it will equal the
hundreds of thousands this costs.  Which is really why insurance is a
tax just like the lottery.  I'm subsidizing all the you know whats
playing bumper cars.  Same way that i'm subsidizing the prisons if i
never step inside one.

Yes, I also get mail and such from other insurers, lots of lawsuit
mail, and something called subro claims when the other guy is at
fault.  Everyone goes after each other.  It's a big process.

It's a pretty complex and well played out scenario that happens
MILLIONS of times each day.  I don't have a state license, so i don't
know the ins and outs and all the details and what you need etc.,
though it wouldn't be valid in your state, but the basis and the
workings are all the same.

We should form a small elite club, the minority group that hasn't
wrecked anyone elses car yet.   Remember, even though a small greedy
selfish group on here will tell you otherwise at your expense, getting
in a car it he most dangerous thing you will ever do in a day.  And it
will keep a large army of us with as much work and overtime(while we
still get it) until the end of time.  Though Bush has mentioned in
some address he wants our job automated(though some companies already
process all this in Africa right now anyway).

You are liable & responsible for the damages.

Excepting "no-fault" or similiar provisions, even if their insurer
pays initially, the insurer can then sue you for reimbursement.

I get $100,000 in hospital bills from an accident you're at fault for.

You have $20,000 bodily injury insurance.

I have $40,000 bodily injury insurance with un/underinsured coverage.

My auto insurance pays upto the $40k amount, then turns around and
sues your insurance company to fork over the $20k, and sues you to
fork over the other $20k.

My health insurance pays the bills between $40k and $100k...now
assuming it had limits and co-pays and such that meant it only paid
$40k of that $60k, I'm left with $20k of bills (and liens from the
hospital, etc on my property).

I go to my attorney, they talk with the health insurer's attorney.  If
you have enough assests, they join the auto insurer and sue you for
$40k and I piggy back onto that case suing you for $20k.  So you're
now being sued for $20k to my auto insurance, $40k to my health
insurance, and $20k to me personally to cover the the $80k in bills
your insurance wasn't enough to cover.

If your only assest was the car you just wrecked, not a lot of time is
going to be wasted on it.  If you own a home with $100k in
equity...ching ching, can you say "Real Estate Agent."  We'll take our
$80k and if we're nice and didn't decide to bing you for pain &
suffering and such, you get to walk away with $20k from the home you
used to own.

You are responsible for the damages.  If you have the ability to pay,
you'll be made to pay.

---------
Next year I'm planning to add a general liability insurance on top of
my auto & homeowners.  300/300 on the auto, and 300k homeowner's
liability already.  The general liability will give me protection to
$1M after the auto and/or homeowners has paid...and covers things not
directly related to them, say I really, really screw up as a volunteer
Fire Captain.  The G.L. is pretty cheap considering most things would
be under auto or homeowners already.

Never would a for profit company seek compensation from a party that caused
them great expense.

Now if you frame the anti-argument this way, you can tell how the sceanario
would play out.

So yes, you insurance company would be hit up, and you personally. Having
proper coverage would be advisable. Also, taking a drivers course would be
advisable.

As for the level of coverage, it is dependent on how much assets you have to
cover. Live in a rented apartment and own a junker, live in a double wide with
two junkers on blocks out front, or live in a mcmansion with a rolls royce? To
decide on coverage you need to factor in the risk of what you would lose, to
the price of the extra coverage.

Charles