Direct Compensation Claims!

In Direct Compensation Claims, “Compensation” under law is not just an arbitrary rule of thumb under the law, it is based on definite principles, direct compensation is desirable, but does not always happen.

So, if a direct compensation claim is a direct compensation claim, why all the double-talk? Because of law a lawyer has to write up papers saying that “the snake ate the frog.” It ends up a lot of stuff that no one can understand, and papers also.

Direct compensation claims are an important part of the law, but they cannot always be practically honored, that’s why they are called claims, and not just “direct compensation”. And these penalties can be appealed so they will not be so direct.

But yet that would be a direct compensation claim on the words “the snake ate the frog.” That is why every bit of law required to be made is a scandal, and every law broken is a big scandal, because of that “snake ate the frog” expanded into ‘gobbledygook’ difficult to understands it.

To say in plainer language: the lines are blurred so that every point of the lines can be clearly understood or there is no direct road to the direct compensation claim. Sure, that fact can make anyone lose patience, and in anger say, “direct claim, yeah, right!” With the nature of the law, that should come as no surprise, especially in politically and also socially oriented law.

At all levels of the law, there are no real life Denny Crain’s on Boston Legal or Perry Masons’, just everything going to the letter of due process. So, not her principle, panic under the law is called being a self-acting vigilante when you think about it.

Patience under pressure is the reality of the situation. The unreality is getting things done “now.” That idea does not count or matter when it comes down to the law, lawyers, judges and courts or even direct compensation claims of any sort. Even in politics and political policy law, this idea is the reality.

When you “take the law into your own hands,” as it is put in the words of law, that is what being a vigilante is, not a heman, but a person in panic. Indeed, being a vigilante is not justice according to the law, it is irrational panic.

Sure, lawyers rationalize, things may get done slow under the law, but they do get done and you do get ultimately compensated under the law even if you do not live to see it. In a sense, if it is not you that benefits, somebody you designate to benefit does.

Compensation under the law comes down to cause and effect even if it is convoluted.

Whether you are a tribal descendant on an American Indian reservation or somebody wronged in a civil wrongful death case. The law does come down to cause and effect, however it may be convoluted or “played out” on life’s stage of objective reality.

In order to create more coverage options for consumers, Direct Compensation Claim for third party liability claims is being introduced.

With Direct Compensation Claim, a driver who is in an accident is compensated by his or her own insurance company for losses caused by a third party instead of looking to the third party insurer.

Direct Compensation Claim does not remove the concept of fault from loss recovery.

The advantage of Direct Compensation Claim is that it permits the introduction of more coverage choices, including the No-Frills package and the possibility of a deductible.

This was copy from --- http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/Promos/Auto-Reform/7-compensation-e.htm
Please check the article and make sure you rewrite the words so it will look as original text with the same meaning

Article Source:
Direct Compensation Claims!