XR250 said:
I have been told by an attorney that if you are an incorporated one-man shop, then the corporate veil is easier to pierce.
This is what I have been told too. If you own the business, are the only employee/worker, and are sued, the judge will rule that the corporation only exists to provide you, the individual, asset protection and the judge will not view you as substantially different from your corporation. The judge will rule you and the corporation as one in the same without needing to pierce the corporate veil.
Now, if you have employees/contractors, can justify that the corporation is used extensively for tax purposes, etc. then this distances you from being one in the same with your corporation. I'm not a lawyer, but I have learned that corporations are over-sold with asset protection for the one-man shop.
The reason that individual does not often end up paying out individually in these big lawsuits is their bankrupt-able net worth is pennies compared to the rest of the suit, and not worth pursuing. In Florida, for instance, your entire personal residence, 401K, IRAs, life insurance, and some personal assets are except from the claims of creditors. When the suing attorney evaluates what is accessible to pay the settlement, they have to take the fire-sale auction value of your car, office equipment, etc. which continues to depreciate every day the lawsuit continues. So they are generally left with investment real estate (again the fire-sale value, not the fair market value) and your taxable brokerage value, which is likely not much in comparison to your overall net worth. And as someone else mentioned, if you own these assets with other individuals (i.e. your spouse or business partners), it is also harder for creditors to access. This is why the individual is typically thrown out of the settlement: not enough money to make it worth it, too hard to quantify, and too hard to pursue.