You are going to see this guy again when he comes back for the other $108k. $10k liability insurance doesn't mean $10k liability limit; it means the insurance will cover that. The guy has been found liable, his insurance is off the hook as they paid as their policy dictates; however, he can now be sued for his remaining liability.

Of course, as you know, this is not your place to comment or to rule on liability; the case you have is for child support and where to put money. Just remember, if it lands on your desk rahec, you can't squeeze blood from a stone; if you can get at the guy's financials (dunno if you can order him to release that kind of thing, but it would certainly be in his interest), garnering his wages for what he can safely handle is better than sending him to the streets so he can lose his job. The phrase "You'll never see that money" comes to mind ...

This is going to turn into a mess. As someone who was sued for medical (my insurance company handled the suit and paid up, then dropped me), I can empathize with both parties (though in my case, I think the b*tch was just a c*@%b!@*#; she sped up and hit my car when I turned, and I took it as "at fault by failure to yield on green" ... I think she overplayed her medical problems, didn't have a scratch on her and I heard she settled real quick for less than her bills when my insurance company wanted to start an investigation).

But I digress. I'm sure as a judge you've noticed the legal system is--by necessity--woefully inadequate for the world. The world is too messed up and confusing to do an air-tight arbitration system on; judges constantly see things and all they can do is go



and then try not to screw it up worse, despite best efforts of the lawyers.