Liability Car Insurance Coverage

Archived From: Finance
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
I'm trying to figure out how much liability insurance to get and want to make sure I do it the fatwallet way. 

The general consensus seems to be that its good to get a large amount of liability insurance if you have assets such as a house, but is this actually needed or is it a waste of money? 

Let's say I'm at fault and the other person has 200k in medical bills but my coverage is only 50k. Can they accept the settlement from the insurance company (up to policy limits - 50k) and then hold me personally liable for the rest? Or do they have to take one or the other? If they take one or the other, wouldn't most lawyers go after the insurance company since it's much quicker and a much higher odds of a payout?

Has anyone ever been sued because their coverage was insufficient or even know anyone that was? I tried to search for stories online but cannot find any which makes think it's a very rare occurrence.

I'm in California.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Let me rephrase.  If you are in a profession where you are more likely to be sued, like a physician, then you'd probably... (more)

Rubl (Jan. 27, 2017 @ 9:19a) |

I usually find the opposite to be true; the nicer the car or address, the emptier the pockets.

supersnoop00 (Jan. 27, 2017 @ 12:19p) |

henkster (Jan. 27, 2017 @ 6:40p) |

Staff Summary
  • Also categorized in:
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

In some states they can take everything then garnish your wages. Varies wildly so I'd ask a lawyer.

TheDeal17 said:   I'm trying to figure out how much liability insurance to get and want to make sure I do it the fatwallet way. 

The general consensus seems to be that its good to get a large amount of liability insurance if you have assets such as a house, but is this actually needed or is it a waste of money? 

Let's say I'm at fault and the other person has 200k in medical bills but my coverage is only 50k. Can they accept the settlement from the insurance company (up to policy limits - 50k) and then hold me personally liable for the rest? Or do they have to take one or the other? If they take one or the other, wouldn't most lawyers go after the insurance company since it's much quicker and a much higher odds of a payout?

Has anyone ever been sued because their coverage was insufficient or even know anyone that was? I tried to search for stories online but cannot find any which makes think it's a very rare occurrence.

  Yes, you can be sued for all damages. If the damages are significantly more than the coverage limit, insurance will typically cut a check for the limit and you will have to deal with the rest.
ETA: The incremental premium to go from say 50k to 100k or 100k to 200k is usually quite small.

Why wouldn't you get 250K or 500K liability? It doesn't cost that much more. Or, you could make a $35K cash deposit with the DMV and save money by not having to pay the slimy lizard. Take one or the other.

Yes, you are liable to any judgements over and above your policy limits. The more liability you get, the less it costs per $ insured. When I went from $500K to $1MM, it cost I think $9 extra for 6 months.

Liability insurance isn't something I'd skimp on unless I'm completely judgement proof. The incremental cost between a $50k min and $500k are negligible in the grand scheme of things. There are much better ways to save money.

Thank you all for the replies, but I'm still not convinced.

My main question is Can they accept the settlement from the insurance company (up to policy limits - 50k) and then hold me personally liable for the rest? Or do they have to take one or the other?

My understanding is that if they accept the settlement from the insurance company then the case is closed and they cannot come after me.

Also why do you think it's so cheap to increase coverage from 500k up 1 mil? The insurance company is in the business of making a profit and wouldn't offer this unless it was very rarely used.

If ypu are the at fault driver insured for $50k and the inured party wants $100k they will take you and your insurance co to court.If the judge awards you say $125k the insurance co writes a check for $50k you are on the hook for the rest at 10 per cent interest .It does depend on the state the accident occurred in,but not much.I am not an atty but have recently been through it as a victim.The judgement can also be connected with the suspension of your license ,you may lose it until the debt is paid.Spend the extra for realistic higher coverage,Your uninsured coverage should be looked at as well.$50k is nothing with the price of repairs and medical.

Yes, it is very likely you will be liable for any damages in excess of policy limits.

Yes, it's a rare scenario. It's exactly the sort of thing that SHOULD be insured against... Rare and financially crippling.

TheDeal17 said:   Let's say I'm at fault and the other person has 200k in medical bills 
You could just as well have caused a death resulting in a multi-million dollar claim. Or an accident involving 3 or 4 vehicles with numerous injuries and property damage. If your liability is capped at $50K, prop damage cap is often much less, like $20K. Just one nice 2 or 3 year old car you cause to be totalled could be more than that, let alone personal injuries.

My main question is Can they accept the settlement from the insurance company (up to policy limits - 50k) and then hold me personally liable for the rest? Or do they have to take one or the other?
If you are that worried, then you should just get an umbrella with coverage of $1M or $2M or whatever you want to CYA. Which reminds me, I need to up my umbrella ...

There is another advantage of umbrella
Umbrella policies tend to provide broader coverage over one or more primary policies, in that they usually lack "follow form" clauses, their definitions of what is covered may be broader than the definitions in the primary policies, and they sometimes lack exclusions used in underlying primary policies. Thus, an umbrella policy may cover certain risks from the first dollar of loss or liability incurred, which were never covered under the primary policies. For those risks that are left uncovered by primary policies but are covered under the umbrella policy, the latter is said to "drop down" to cover them as primary insurance and fill in the gaps in the underlying policies.
My understanding is that if they accept the settlement from the insurance company then the case is closed and they cannot come after me. 
They can settle and agree to not go after you, yes. But in order to go after you, they'd have to sue you and go thru a trial. 

I suppose the ins co could be a d*ck and cut them a check in a settlement without getting them to agree not to sue you for the remainder

rufflesinc said:   
My main question is Can they accept the settlement from the insurance company (up to policy limits - 50k) and then hold me personally liable for the rest? Or do they have to take one or the other?
If you are that worried, then you should just get an umbrella with coverage of $1M or $2M or whatever you want to CYA. Which reminds me, I need to up my umbrella ...

There is another advantage of umbrella
Umbrella policies tend to provide broader coverage over one or more primary policies, in that they usually lack "follow form" clauses, their definitions of what is covered may be broader than the definitions in the primary policies, and they sometimes lack exclusions used in underlying primary policies. Thus, an umbrella policy may cover certain risks from the first dollar of loss or liability incurred, which were never covered under the primary policies. For those risks that are left uncovered by primary policies but are covered under the umbrella policy, the latter is said to "drop down" to cover them as primary insurance and fill in the gaps in the underlying policies.
My understanding is that if they accept the settlement from the insurance company then the case is closed and they cannot come after me. 
They can settle and agree to not go after you, yes. But in order to go after you, they'd have to sue you and go thru a trial. 

I suppose the ins co could be a d*ck and cut them a check in a settlement without getting them to agree not to sue you for the remainder

For OP--  Umbrellas usually require a certain amount of underlying coverage, so $50k won't cut it. 

Who is only getting 50k of liability ?? I think OP used 50k as a random number and not his actual coverage

Also, someone mentioned on a previous thread that if you have a higher coverage then the ins co will let their more experienced claim adjusters and attorneys deal with it than a lower liability limit.  The thought is that ins co would fight harder not to payout $1mm liability vs $50k liability.

I think you're confusing claim settlement and judgement.  With the claim settlement, the injured party makes the claim against your ins co and the ins co will payout up to the limit of the policy if the injured party agrees with the settlement amt offered.  If the injured party doesn't agree with the amount offered, they may sue you and the ins co for the damages. 

Now here's where the fun begins: If the ins co doesn't want to fight the lawsuit, they can simply write a check for the limit of the liability and they're off the hook.  Then you're left to deal with the lawsuit.  If the judgement is more than the policy limit then you're on the hook for the balance and the injured party can go after your assets.  Now, if your ins limit was $1mm then the ins co will assign their senior lawyers to the lawsuit because they have a $1mm skin in the game.  They're not going to easily payout $1mm without a fight.  So you see the difference here between settling the claim our of court vs the injured party suing you and the ins co because they don't agree with what the ins co offered them?

TheDeal17 said:   Thank you all for the replies, but I'm still not convinced.

My main question is Can they accept the settlement from the insurance company (up to policy limits - 50k) and then hold me personally liable for the rest? Or do they have to take one or the other?

My understanding is that if they accept the settlement from the insurance company then the case is closed and they cannot come after me.

Your understanding is incorrect.

TheDeal17 said:   Thank you all for the replies, but I'm still not convinced.

My main question is Can they accept the settlement from the insurance company (up to policy limits - 50k) and then hold me personally liable for the rest? Or do they have to take one or the other?



You are personally liable for the entire judgement against you if you are on your own time when the collision occured (but not usually while working for someone else). Your insurance will hopefully cover the amount you are personally liable for up to your limit, and then you cover the remainder.
 TheDeal17 said:   
My understanding is that if they accept the settlement from the insurance company then the case is closed and they cannot come after me. 

So if you already knew the answer, why ask? I assure you that your understanding is incorrect.
TheDeal17 said:    Also why do you think it's so cheap to increase coverage from 500k up 1 mil? The insurance company is in the business of making a profit and wouldn't offer this unless it was very rarely used.
That's exactly why it's cheaper. Higher $ claims are rarer than low claims.

ach1199 said:   Also, someone mentioned on a previous thread that if you have a higher coverage then the ins co will let their more experienced claim adjusters and attorneys deal with it than a lower liability limit.  The thought is that ins co would fight harder not to payout $1mm liability vs $50k liability.

I think you're confusing claim settlement and judgement.  With the claim settlement, the injured party makes the claim against your ins co and the ins co will payout up to the limit of the policy if the injured party agrees with the settlement amt offered.  If the injured party doesn't agree with the amount offered, they may sue you and the ins co for the damages. 

Now here's where the fun begins: If the ins co doesn't want to fight the lawsuit, they can simply write a check for the limit of the liability and they're off the hook.  Then you're left to deal with the lawsuit.  If the judgement is more than the policy limit then you're on the hook for the balance and the injured party can go after your assets.  Now, if your ins limit was $1mm then the ins co will assign their senior lawyers to the lawsuit because they have a $1mm skin in the game.  They're not going to easily payout $1mm without a fight.  So you see the difference here between settling the claim our of court vs the injured party suing you and the ins co because they don't agree with what the ins co offered them?

  Can the insurance company really cut a check without your permission? Because you would require them to write a stipulation that if the defendant accepts the check the matter is settled. And if insurance company doesn't add this stipulation they would be acting in bad faith. So the choice for the plaintiff would be to take settlement or go to court. It can't be accept partial settlement and then go to court for more.

If I was the plaintiff in your hypothetical situation and the insurance company offered me $50k to settle, I would say no and hire a personal injury attorney. I would win easily in court. The insurance company would pay their maximum liability of $50k (the debate on whether this comes before or after i win doesn't really matter) and then I would come after you for the difference.

ETA: The insurance company may still be obligated to provide you with a defense attorney, but (as others have pointed out) since they won't have any skin in the game they don't have incentive to ensure you have anything more than adequate representation.

TheDeal17 said:   
ach1199 said:   Also, someone mentioned on a previous thread that if you have a higher coverage then the ins co will let their more experienced claim adjusters and attorneys deal with it than a lower liability limit.  The thought is that ins co would fight harder not to payout $1mm liability vs $50k liability.

I think you're confusing claim settlement and judgement.  With the claim settlement, the injured party makes the claim against your ins co and the ins co will payout up to the limit of the policy if the injured party agrees with the settlement amt offered.  If the injured party doesn't agree with the amount offered, they may sue you and the ins co for the damages. 

Now here's where the fun begins: If the ins co doesn't want to fight the lawsuit, they can simply write a check for the limit of the liability and they're off the hook.  Then you're left to deal with the lawsuit.  If the judgement is more than the policy limit then you're on the hook for the balance and the injured party can go after your assets.  Now, if your ins limit was $1mm then the ins co will assign their senior lawyers to the lawsuit because they have a $1mm skin in the game.  They're not going to easily payout $1mm without a fight.  So you see the difference here between settling the claim our of court vs the injured party suing you and the ins co because they don't agree with what the ins co offered them?

  Can the insurance company really cut a check without your permission? Because you would require them to write a stipulation that if the defendant accepts the check the matter is settled. And if insurance company doesn't add this stipulation they would be acting in bad faith. So the choice for the plaintiff would be to take settlement or go to court. It can't be accept partial settlement and then go to court for more.


Yes, they can make a payment without your permission. If they believe they are liable via your policy, they will do it without extensive legal action to minimize their costs. This is why higher limits become especially valuable - the higher the stakes, the more likely your insurer is to invest in an aggressive dispute and negotiation about liability.

But past their insured liability, it's your problem, not theirs.

doveroftke said:   If I was the plaintiff in your hypothetical situation and the insurance company offered me $50k to settle, 
  who here has only 50k in liability

Help me understand liability insurance. I'm worried I don't understand it completely. I'm under the impression it's supposed to protect your assets, but what about a scenario like this:
You have $300,000 in liability coverage
You have $400,000 in assets
You are found liable for $500,000 in damages

How does that play out? Are you on the hook for $100,000 or $200,000 in liability beyond your coverage?

supersnoop00 said:   Help me understand liability insurance. I'm worried I don't understand it completely. I'm under the impression it's supposed to protect your assets, but what about a scenario like this:
You have $300,000 in liability coverage
You have $400,000 in assets
You are found liable for $500,000 in damages

How does that play out? Are you on the hook for $100,000 or $200,000 in liability beyond your coverage?

  $500k in damages. Ins pays $300k from liability coverage. That leaves $200k you are responsible for.

You have $400k so no point in declaring bk, you pay the whole $200k by liquidating assets or mortgaging or whatevs

supersnoop00 said:   Help me understand liability insurance. I'm worried I don't understand it completely. I'm under the impression it's supposed to protect your assets, but what about a scenario like this:
You have $300,000 in liability coverage
You have $400,000 in assets
You are found liable for $500,000 in damages

How does that play out? Are you on the hook for $100,000 or $200,000 in liability beyond your coverage?
 

  What kind of assets?  In some states your house, for example, would not be considered as such due to Homestead exemption.

Rubl said:   
supersnoop00 said:   Help me understand liability insurance. I'm worried I don't understand it completely. I'm under the impression it's supposed to protect your assets, but what about a scenario like this:
You have $300,000 in liability coverage
You have $400,000 in assets
You are found liable for $500,000 in damages

How does that play out? Are you on the hook for $100,000 or $200,000 in liability beyond your coverage?

  What kind of assets?  In some states your house, for example, would not be considered as such due to Homestead exemption.

This is why OJ SIMPSON moved to FL after his civil judgement.  in those cases, it may be actually good idea to store your savings in the equity of your house rather than stocks or cash

To answer your question OP, yes the injured party can accept a settlement from the insurance company for the policy limit and still pursue you for additional damages.

My cousin recently totaled my car when he was hit by a drunk driver. Injury wasn't serious (cuts/bruises from airbags/seat belt) but they took him to ER as a precaution. Bill was over 10k just for that because he had no insurance. With the ambulance charge and a few follow-up visits to a chiropractor medical bills was about 15k.

Drunk driver only had 15k minimum policy limit. When my cousin's lawyer filed a claim with them they already saw that just medical was over policy limit not factoring in lawyer fees or pain and suffering. They simply wrote a check for 15k with a letter saying that was the policy limit and they knew damages was over that amount. It didn't require that he waive damages above that or the right to sue the driver.

We didn't actually sue the other driver. His lawyer just filed a claim against my own insurer since I had uninsured/underinsured coverage. My insurer paid out another 15k to cover lawyer fees and pain and suffering. I believe my insurer have the option to sue the other driver for the 15k if they wanted.

I think everyone pretty much has this covered. You are liable for any judgement above your policy limits and your insurance coverage doesn't "shield" your personal assets. If you have 200k in assets and 1MM in coverage, a 1.2MM judgement will cause your insurance to fully pay out plus all of your personal assets are on the line (depending on homestead, ERISA, etc. protections)

Having 100k in assets doesn't mean you only need a 100k policy.

Snezz said:   
Drunk driver only had 15k minimum policy limit. When my cousin's lawyer filed a claim with them they already saw that just medical was over policy limit not factoring in lawyer fees or pain and suffering. They simply wrote a check for 15k with a letter saying that was the policy limit and they knew damages was over that amount. 

  DUI is a crime. Is it normal for auto insurer to cover incidents when you are driving drunk? Is there a limit to what they dont usually cover?

vegas4x4 said:    If you have 200k in assets and 1MM in coverage, a 1.2MM judgement will cause your insurance to fully pay out plus all of your personal assets are on the line (depending on homestead, ERISA, etc. protections)

Having 100k in assets doesn't mean you only need a 100k policy.

Anyone know the 99%ile of auto liability claims? 99.9%ile?

rufflesinc said:   
Snezz said:   
Drunk driver only had 15k minimum policy limit. When my cousin's lawyer filed a claim with them they already saw that just medical was over policy limit not factoring in lawyer fees or pain and suffering. They simply wrote a check for 15k with a letter saying that was the policy limit and they knew damages was over that amount. 

  DUI is a crime. Is it normal for auto insurer to cover incidents when you are driving drunk? Is there a limit to what they dont usually cover?

  What?  If the at-fault party is DUI then what does that have to do with the injured party not being covered by the at-fault's insurance policy?  The insurance co can't simply walk away saying that their insured was DUI so they won't cover the claim.  May be SlimTim can chime in?

ach1199 said:   
rufflesinc said:   
Snezz said:   
Drunk driver only had 15k minimum policy limit. When my cousin's lawyer filed a claim with them they already saw that just medical was over policy limit not factoring in lawyer fees or pain and suffering. They simply wrote a check for 15k with a letter saying that was the policy limit and they knew damages was over that amount. 

  DUI is a crime. Is it normal for auto insurer to cover incidents when you are driving drunk? Is there a limit to what they dont usually cover?

  What?  If the at-fault party is DUI then what does that have to do with the injured party not being covered by the at-fault's insurance policy?  The insurance co can't simply walk away saying that their insured was DUI so they won't cover the claim.  May be SlimTim can chime in?

  I don't know, insurance carriers deny coverage all the time. I'm just curious if there are limits to the situations they will pay out

Does ins pay out if you were convicted of vehicular manslaughter in the same incident?

rufflesinc said:   
vegas4x4 said:   If you have 200k in assets and 1MM in coverage, a 1.2MM judgement will cause your insurance to fully pay out plus all of your personal assets are on the line (depending on homestead, ERISA, etc. protections)

Having 100k in assets doesn't mean you only need a 100k policy.

Anyone know the 99%ile of auto liability claims? 99.9%ile?

  
Hard to say on that.   I don't see anything breaking it down to say what % of auto accidents result in >$100k claims.

However we can take some guesses.    

http://www.rmiia.org/auto/traffic_safety/Cost_of_crashes.asp

There are ~2 million injuries resulting from auto accidents annually.   CDC estimates the economic cost from medical care and lost productivity to be $99B.   That works out to just about $50k per injury on average.   But I'm sure that skews high so most accidents are much lower severity and lower cost with a smaller % of accidents that are significant cost.     We've got ~35k fatalities a year.   I'm sure those have a high cost in productivity and potential lawsuits.   

There are nearly 200 million licensed drivers in the USA.     With 2 million injures from accidents then we've got a 1% chance that any driver is injured in an accident.   
But a lot of those are single car accidents or otherwise no fault.   

Gross estimate guess... I'd imagine the chance of being at fault for an accident > $100k is somewhere in the  0.01% to 0.1% ballpark.
 

rufflesinc said:   
Snezz said:   
Drunk driver only had 15k minimum policy limit. When my cousin's lawyer filed a claim with them they already saw that just medical was over policy limit not factoring in lawyer fees or pain and suffering. They simply wrote a check for 15k with a letter saying that was the policy limit and they knew damages was over that amount. 

  DUI is a crime. Is it normal for auto insurer to cover incidents when you are driving drunk? Is there a limit to what they dont usually cover?

  
Auto insurance would cover all accidents where their insured is at fault regardless on if it's a DUI or not.  People with DUIs have higher rates.  They wouldn't be charging higher rates if DUIs wasn't covered. 

What they don't cover is intentional acts or fraud.  So a road rage incident where you intentionally hit someone would not be covered  by the insured.  You would have to use your own insurance with deductible or sue the other driver.  This also applies in some states in the case of sudden medical emergencies like a heart attack.  The person could raise the defense that they are not liable due to the unforeseen event.

OP, unless you are judgement proof (meaning you don't own anything in your name, have no job and will not likely work the rest of your life or have substantial assets) then sure you can carry your state minimums.  Where I live, that's 30000/60000/25000, which you need in order to get a license.  Of course it doesn't stop you from driving without a license.  Lots of people carry the minimum because they are judgement proof or can't afford more.

It's because of people like that, that many of us on FWF (myself included) carry 200k+ in uninsured/under-insured coverage on top of our own liability policies of 1M+.

The question is, and what you didn't include in your post.  What is your age now, how many assets do you have and what is your lifetime earning potential?  Are you going to work 40 years at minimum wage, rent a room over someone's garage and will never have more then $100 to your name or do you have the potential to earn a reasonable income and collect assets where a judgement of $200k+ against you could ruin your life, because you did something stupid once.

That's the question you need to answer and what will decide what you need to do related to your insurance coverage level.

For those carrying umbrella coverage, how did you arrive at a coverage amount?  There's not a significant cost difference between 1 and 2 million in coverage, but I have to wonder how to determine the sweet spot.  Coverage equal to your net worth?  2x net worth?  Does it really make a difference when there also always the outside chance you could be hit with a 10 million suit if you royally screwed up (say DUI and crippled a family)?

I've done a lot of research trying to come up with the "right" amount, but don't know that there is any clear rule of thumb.  Opinions appreciated.

rufflesinc said:   
Rubl said:   
supersnoop00 said:   Help me understand liability insurance. I'm worried I don't understand it completely. I'm under the impression it's supposed to protect your assets, but what about a scenario like this:
You have $300,000 in liability coverage
You have $400,000 in assets
You are found liable for $500,000 in damages

How does that play out? Are you on the hook for $100,000 or $200,000 in liability beyond your coverage?

  What kind of assets?  In some states your house, for example, would not be considered as such due to Homestead exemption.

This is why OJ SIMPSON moved to FL after his civil judgement.  in those cases, it may be actually good idea to store your savings in the equity of your house rather than stocks or cash

  No dollar limit for the house value? If you have nothing in the bank but your house is worth $5M, you're judgement proof?

mikk1 said:   For those carrying umbrella coverage, how did you arrive at a coverage amount?  There's not a significant cost difference between 1 and 2 million in coverage, but I have to wonder how to determine the sweet spot.  Coverage equal to your net worth?  2x net worth?  Does it really make a difference when there also always the outside chance you could be hit with a 10 million suit if you royally screwed up (say DUI and crippled a family)?

I've done a lot of research trying to come up with the "right" amount, but don't know that there is any clear rule of thumb.  Opinions appreciated.

  I'd say once you've covered your assets then think about your future income stream if you're in a state where plaintiffs can garnish wages. A high-earner like a medical specialist is going to need millions to protect their future income stream. If you make an average salary then not as much.

rufflesinc said:   
supersnoop00 said:   Help me understand liability insurance. I'm worried I don't understand it completely. I'm under the impression it's supposed to protect your assets, but what about a scenario like this:
You have $300,000 in liability coverage
You have $400,000 in assets
You are found liable for $500,000 in damages

How does that play out? Are you on the hook for $100,000 or $200,000 in liability beyond your coverage?

  $500k in damages. Ins pays $300k from liability coverage. That leaves $200k you are responsible for.

You have $400k so no point in declaring bk, you pay the whole $200k by liquidating assets or mortgaging or whatevs

  I've always heard that liability insurance "protects your assets" (like some folks are saying in this very thread), but it sounds like it doesn't really protect anything; it just provides a larger cushion before your assets are impacted.

I have a million dollars in liability coverage. Only $35 more every 6 months than the 250k . Probably never need it but .......

supersnoop00 said:   rufflesinc said:   
supersnoop00 said:   Help me understand liability insurance. I'm worried I don't understand it completely. I'm under the impression it's supposed to protect your assets, but what about a scenario like this:
You have $300,000 in liability coverage
You have $400,000 in assets
You are found liable for $500,000 in damages

How does that play out? Are you on the hook for $100,000 or $200,000 in liability beyond your coverage?

  $500k in damages. Ins pays $300k from liability coverage. That leaves $200k you are responsible for.

You have $400k so no point in declaring bk, you pay the whole $200k by liquidating assets or mortgaging or whatevs

  I've always heard that liability insurance "protects your assets" (like some folks are saying in this very thread), but it sounds like it doesn't really protect anything; it just provides a larger cushion before your assets are impacted.

Sure it does if you had 500k in coverage instead of $300k

Skipping 16 Messages...



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017