Monthly Archives: June 2014

Protecting you and your family with proper insurance

Posted on by
Reply

By Jenny Robinson
Guest Writer
Rittenberg, Buffen, Gulbrandsen,
Robinson & Saks, Ltd.
Thursday, June 12, 2014

In my article last month, I explained how Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage and Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage protects you and your family.

To recap, when you are involved in a car accident, you make a claim to recover for your damages with the help of injury lawyers under your UM coverage where an at-fault driver has no insurance (or hits you or your vehicle and drives away). If the at-fault driver has insurance, but not enough insurance to cover your damages, and you have higher limits than the at-fault driver, you can seek to recover additional money under your UIM coverage to compensate you for your damages. Here you can get Tips for Choosing the Right Insurance Company.

With UM coverage, how much you can recover is limited by the extent of your damages, but also the extent of your UM coverage limits. You should view more here.

With UIM coverage, how much you can recover is limited by: the extent of your damages; the at-fault driver’s liability insurance limits and; how much additional UIM coverage you have. Generally, the maximum you can collect under your own UIM policy is the amount of your UIM policy, minus the amount of the at-fault driver’s liability policy. You could also discover more on saving money by comparison of prices. In a collision where you are the only one injured as a result of the underinsured driver’s negligence, if the at-fault driver has $20,000 per person liability limits, $40,000 per occurrence and you have $50,000 per person, $100,000 per occurrence UIM limits, the most you can recover under the at-fault driver’s policy is $20,000 and the most you can recover under your own UIM policy is an additional $30,000 ($50,000 total). When it comes to your business, you can find 7 Reasons Why You Need Business Insurance.

If your two children were also injured in the collision, $50,000 is the most anyone of you could recover and $100,000 is the most all three of you together can recover. It does not matter if one of you loses a limb, becomes handicapped, sustains brain damage or dies. The policy limits are what the policy limits are.

The sad truth is many people do not have sufficient UIM and UM coverage. There is also need for handling tough family disputes in some houses. Even after a settlement or award for one’s entire UM or UIM policy limits, many people are poorly compensated for their damages and left with debts. Notwithstanding, insurance companies remain, and will remain, quite happy to sell you automobile insurance with bare bone coverage ($20,000 per person, $40,000 per occurrence, which is Illinois’ mandated minimum coverage limits). Doing so provides them, NOT YOU, with the most bang for your buck. After all, they are in the business of selling insurance to make a profit.

While buying an automobile insurance policy with lower limits costs a little less money, it could turn into the most costly mistake. For very little money, you can and should increase your policy limits to protect yourself, your family, your passengers and anybody else you allow to drive your vehicle.

How much one’s insurance costs depends upon many factors, including the insurance company, driver’s age, marital status, driving history, number and type of vehicles insured, each vehicle’s main use, annual mileage, family members insured, etc. Therefore, everyone’s insurance rates will differ. Using myself and my husband as an example, I can show you just how little it costs to increase one’s coverage and better protect yourself.

My husband and I own two vehicles, a new Jeep Cherokee limited and a 2007 Honda Accord. USAA provides us with our insurance. We have liability, UM and UIM limits of $1,000,000 per person, $1,000,000 per accident (1 mil/1 mil) for both vehicles.Based on my family, every month, the difference between coverage limits of $20,000/40,000 (20/40) and $1,000,000/$1,000,000 (1 mil/1 mil) totals only $15.99. Over the course of a year, we pay only $191.88 year (or approximately 53 cents a day) more for $1,000,000/$1,000,000 than we would if we took the state’s minimum of $20,000 per occurrence, $40,000 per vehicle. While your own rates will vary based upon numerous factors, I urge you to call your insurance company so as to insure you are adequately protecting yourself and your family.

Accidents are a horrible thing, but, when tragedy happens, failing to have adequate UM and UIM limits to protect yourself and your family is a double tragedy. It is something you can easily prevent. Increasing your UM and UIM coverage limits cost very little.

No matter what coverage limits you or the at-fault driver has, there are certain steps you must take within a limited amount of time to protect your right to recover against the at-fault driver and/or under your own insurance policy. Failure to do so could bar you from ever recovering any money for your damages. There is the local business Hale Law, P.A. that can help with the any legal aid if necessary.

Therefore, if you get injured as a result of a motor vehicle incident, whether the driver has insurance or not, or flees the scene, please call me as soon as possible so that I can help to protect your rights. You can reach me at my law office, Rittenberg, Buffen, Gulbrandsen, Robinson & Saks, Ltd., 309 W. Washington, Ste. 900, Chicago, IL, 60606, 312-332-5400, or on my cell phone 773-501-7232. I would be happy to meet with you at my office in downtown Chicago or in Aurora.

Information obtained is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. The material is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The material is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

Restoring the building trades to their former prominence

Posted on by
Reply

By Stan Lesniewicz
Special to the
Fox Valley Labor News
Thursday, June 12, 2014

As part of acquiring his Bachelor of Arts in Construction Management from the National Labor College, Stan Lesniewicz researched and wrote a paper examining factors which contribute to the decline of union membership, ways membership can be grown and examine the public’s view of unions.

Portions of his paper will be published in installments in the Fox Valley Labor News. This is the third installment.

“The construction industry has been responsive with technological advances in the relationship between management and workers. Construction trade unions have attempted to remain relevant and viable by adapting how they are perceived, as well as how they interact with contractors. The construction industry in the U.S. has undergone tremendous changes throughout the years in its means and methods of how a project is constructed and in the way management and workers interact. These two areas must be managed to ensure delivery of a finished project that promotes quality for the owner, profitability for the contractor, and balances the workers desire for efficiency, equity and voice.

“Included in Lesniewicz’s paper was a survey titled Public Perception of Unions, which was constructed and distributed for the purpose of ascertaining working; union construction trades people’s opinions on the current state of the general public’s perception of unions. A 2011 New York Times article indicated unions are held in a negative light, according to popular opinion. The survey of 10 questions was used to determine if a targeted group of union trades people concur with that sentiment. It also asked participants to offer solutions which may influence a transformation of this attitude toward a more positive public sentiment of unions. The survey was distributed to 47 union members, comprised of 13 trade unions. What follows are excerpts/summaries of that survey:

“Question No. 4 asks participants if their views on unions have changed since they have become union members. The results show 26 answered their views on unions changed after joining. A response indicative of the general sentiment explains: “I used to have a bad perception of unions until I saw how hard and respectfully they work together in the construction field.” The respondents that did not exhibit a change in view were among those coming from a union household or joined the union at a young age and never experienced the transition from non-union to union. They did not have the viewpoint of the respondents that have seen the workplace from both perspectives.

“In response to questions No. 5 and No. 6, (Why do you think unions have a negative perception in the public? and Do you have any suggestions on what needs to be done in order to change negative views of unions in the public?) survey takers overwhelmingly answered there is a negative public perception of unions, with only one response to the contrary. Reasons ranged broadly, although the most often cited cause pointed toward union’s high wages and benefits, with nearly 33 percent indicating so. Some other causes mentioned included “jealousy” and misinformation, indicating: ‘The only press unions ever receive is bad press and there is too much word of mouth rumors spreading unions faults and short comings.’”

“It is clear participants are convinced a negative perception of unions exists in the public’s mind. Opinions on how to remedy the situation varied, including turning an eye inward upon the unions themselves and to respond quickly when attacked in the media. Though the common thread appeared to be to inform the public on the good unions do.

“Replies to question No. 7, (How much do you think the public perceptions of unions have hurt unions over the years?) indicate there is a divergence among survey taker as to whether or not public perception has hurt unions. Nearly 49 percent believing unions have been hurt a little. Just over 44 percent indicated unions have been hurt a lot, and nearly 7 percent signified unions were not hurt much. This is a curious result, as all, save one respondent, felt there is a negative perception of unions among the public.

“Predominate responses to question 10, (What would you tell people — or what things would you focus on — if you were trying to make the case to non-union members regarding why unions are good for America?) directed the public to witness how unions enable members to earn good and livable wages, along with abundant health and retirement benefits.

“One reply suggests to “. . . tell them how much good unions have done for families and how unions built America and gave them many of the laws pertaining to work (such as the 40hr. work week).” Another indicates “union wages buoy the entire labor force’s wages.”

“These responses are interestingly incongruous when juxtaposed against the responses in question No. 5, which indicated the public’s negative perception of unions is caused mainly due to the union’s high wages and benefits. The public believes union workers make too much money and the union survey respondent’s counter to that is to explain higher wages are the main benefit of unions for America. This paradox must be reconciled if the unions are to truly change public opinion.”

Stan Lesniewicz is a second generation Sheet Metal Worker with Local 73. He has been a proud union member for the last 14 years. Lesniewicz decided to go back to school when the economy went bad, attending the National Labor College from 2010 to 2013 where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Construction Management.