No Fault Insurance

[sgrizzle]

Since oklahoma has a problem with uninsured motorists, and illegal immigrant motorists (according to the news), should we consider changing to a "No fault" state?

To sum it up, in a "no fault" state, you insure yourself. If someone hits you, your company pays. No worries about what the other guy does or doesn't have. Some studies to show rates are actually lower in no-fault states.

Any thoughts?

Wikipedia article

[NellieBly]

I just wished people would realize that what is known as 'uninsured motorist' has nothing to do with whether or not the guy that hits you has insurance.

It's one of the biggest insurance rip-offs in my opinion.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

To sum it up, in a "no fault" state, you insure yourself. If someone hits you, your company pays. No worries about what the other guy does or doesn't have. Some studies to show rates are actually lower in no-fault states.

I think that could gain momentum, given the growing disgust and mistrust over insurers weaseling out of claims.  Right now, mandatory insurance only means higher rates for a captive audience.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

I just wished people would realize that what is known as 'uninsured motorist' has nothing to do with whether or not the guy that hits you has insurance.

It's one of the biggest insurance rip-offs in my opinion.

Care to explain?  Becuase that's what i think/thought it was.  

My personal feeling is that if someone doesn't have insurance, their car, damaged or not, should be sold, and the proceeds should go towards repairing your car.  As it is, nothing seems to happen to them except maybe a fine for no insurance.

[Wilbur]

Some studies to show rates are actually lower in no-fault states.

I would be in favor of no-fault if this were the case.  Otherwise, it really makes no difference.  If the at-fault guy doesn't have insurance, your insurance pays (if you have the correct coverage).

I just wished people would realize that what is known as 'uninsured motorist' has nothing to do with whether or not the guy that hits you has insurance.

Absolutely correct.  Uninsured motorist coverage has nothing to do with someone hitting you who doesn't have insurance.  It should be called 'under-insured motorist' coverage.  Uninsured motorist coverage ONLY kicks in when you have high medical bills and the other person's insurance maxes out.  But, if you have health insurance coverage through your employer, it will usually kick in when the other guy's insurance maxes out.

A huge waste of money!  My agent was very reluctant to let me drop it because "I'm required to have a certain percentage of clients with uninsured motorist."  Okay, great.  But not me.

[Ed W]

I lived in Pennsylvania with it's no fault insurance and I was a passenger involved in a crash of a friend's car.  Basically, I was an innocent bystander sitting in the passenger seat.  When it was all over, I had about $25,000 in medical bills that went to my auto insurance company.  The company promptly doubled my rates, claiming it was a 'normally scheduled increase.'  I promptly dropped then and found another company with my old rates.

The problem with no fault is that everybody pays, regardless of who caused a crash.

[Wilbur]

The company promptly doubled my rates...

Oklahoma State Statutes prohibits insurance companies from upping your rates based on a collision that is not your fault.  As to how to prove they upped your rates based on the collision that was not your fault as opposed to a normal rate increase, I don't know.

[sgrizzle]

My CLU report showed two "not at fault" accidents on the same day. I was told my rates were going up because of the fact I had two incidents so close to one another.

To add insult to injury, not only did I not get hit twice, I didn't even leave my home that day.

[Wilbur]

Two items from the Oklahoma Insurance Department's website:

What is Uninsured Motorist Coverage and am I required to have it?

This coverage pays you, resident members of your family, and occupants of your car for personal injuries caused by an uninsured motorist, an underinsured motorist, or a hit and run driver. While you are not required by law to carry this coverage, companies are required to offer it with every policy. It does not pay for damages to your car. If an uninsured motorist damages your car, repairs would be paid for under your collision coverage. If you carry liability only, there would be no insurance coverage available to repair your car.

I was involved in an accident in which the other driver was at fault and had no liability insurance. Can my rates increase after I file a claim on my own auto policy?

No. Section 941 of the Oklahoma Insurance Code says that a company cannot assign driving record points, cancel, refuse to renew or increase the premium rate for any motor vehicle liability or collision insurance policy for the reason that the insured has been involved in a motor vehicle collision and was not at fault.

http://www.oid.state.ok.us/083101ConsumerAssistance/083101CA%20FAQs.htm#1

[NellieBly]

I was hit by an uninsured motorist and after they gave him a ticket the cop let him drive off. I was  livid. If an uninsured motorist is involved in any accident, their car should be towed and stored until they have proof of insurance -- and not just a 30-day policy either.

I asked my state legislator if this could be something addressed by a new law and she thought it was a good idea. I need to email her and remind her.

[okiebybirth]

No-fault is truly the way to go, but you have to be careful what bill of goods you are being sold.  No state currently has a true no-fault law though Michigan is closest.  At least 30-40% of insurance claims is swallowed up by lawyers.  That is on top of what is paid out to doctors, etc...  The insurance industry and lawyers do not want to see no-fault and they are going to fight it at every turn.

Fill'er up with no fault, please

[Wilbur]

If an uninsured motorist is involved in any accident, their car should be towed and stored until they have proof of insurance...

Be careful what you ask for.  Police run into many people who just don't have their current proof in their car, but you can tell, based on the person and the type of car they drive, .......  that they indeed have insurance on their car, it's just the new proof is at home laying on the desk.  You don't want it mandated that all these cars get towed.  They still get ticketed, but the outcry from all these towed cars would make your proposal very short lived.  The tow bill would be over $100 for a ticket that will get dismissed at no cost.

[Conan71]

As it stands now, police will have your vehicle towed if they stop you and the tag is more than 90 days out of date.  It has happened to several people I know.  One friend had to borrow money from me as his total to get the car out was around $500 after he paid up his tag, the fine, and the bail for his car.  It was laziness on his part and there was no excuse, but I bet he never lets his tag lapse again.

I think that is a screwed up sense of priorities.  Yes, I can understand enforcing tax laws, but allowing some creep w/o insurance to drive off is just wrong.  I think car impoundment and a database linked to insurance companies would be a great idea so OTC knows if someone went back and cancelled their insurance 30 days after buying their tag.  Hell, all the insurance and tag records are on computers in the first place, how costly could it be to have some sort of an automatic cross-check system?  

IOW- if someone cancels their insurance, it would flag on the OTC computer.  I think they should pass a law that states if you have had more than a 10 day lapse on liability coverage in the last year, you cannot buy a tag for your car and you cannot renew your license.  If you aren't willing to be a responsible car owner and driver, you don't drive.

[cannon_fodder]

1) Just to be clear, in a no-fault state you insurance pays and then goes after the other guy.  So at the end of the day it essentially requires all insurance companies to issue ONLY COMPREHENSIVE policies.  They are forced to cover any and all damages and you are forced to pay for such an extensive policy.  

I dont want to pay for full coverage.  

2) Also, discounts for good drivers go out the window. Since your insurance company has to pay anyway, they wont bother giving discounts.  Since I have a clean driving record I like discounts.

3) Furthermore, if you are trying to get lawyers out of the picture this isnt going to help at all.  You are just as likely to need a lawyer to get money from your own insurance company as you are to get money from some other insurance company.  Not to mention the setup, by its very nature, requires the insurance companies to use more lawyers.  When the insurance company pays out they will attempt to collect from the party actually at fault, which will require an attorney.  Whereas, in the current situation the insurance company for the party at fault usually offers to pay without the need for an attorney (which you should carefully consider anyway).

Thus, more attorney's probably.

4) Finally, this is yet another erosion of personal responsibility in America.  If you are a careless or just a poor driver, you should pay.  Not me, you.


So if you want no fault insurance, you can go out and buy the policy right now.  But dont force me to do so.

[sauerkraut]

Michigan has "No-Fault" insurance and they had it since the mid-1970's. The rates are indeed higher, but Michigan does not have the all the illegal aliens driving that Oklahoma has. Texas cars insurance is very expensive due to the illegal aliens driving. The only way to solve the problem would be to enforce our border laws and start deporting illegals,--- Everytime an illegal becomes known in the system such as a cop stops a car with a busted tail light, the driver turns out to be illegal- Goodbye! He's gone, In time the accident rate will be whittled down. "No-fault" can let ya hang out to dry in a serious crash. it only helps the uninsured drivers and will be good for illegals I see nothing good about it for regular hard working citizens.