No Fault Insurance

[okiebybirth]

Twenty-four states now have variations of no-fault auto insurance, but fierce opposition by the insurance industry and the legal profession has rendered many of these laws ineffective.[8] Under the adversarial system of fault insurance, 55 percent of those seriously injured receive no compensation, and the average monetary loss is $76,341. However, a U.S. Department of Transportation study showed that they receive only an "average of $3,742, or 5 percent of their loss." By contrast, in Michigan under no-fault insurance, 260 claims for "catastrophic" medical costs (more than $25,000) were compensated an average of $108,000 each. Of these, 32 percent were single-vehicle accidents where there was no other driver to sue. Fifteen percent of the single-vehicle accidents were motorcycle accidents, which are usually catastrophic. Such accidents are, under current insurance coverage, usually uncompensated.[9]

[8]   Tobias, Auto Insurance Alert, pp. 4, 54-61; Jeffrey O'Connell, The Lawsuit Lottery (New York: The Free Press/Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979), pp. 158-61.

[9]   Jeffrey O'Connell, Lawsuit Lottery, (New York: The Free Press/Macmillan Publishing Co., 1979), pp. 157-175.

http://www.ied.info/books/www/insurance.html

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

CF- good points, but as it stands right now, you ARE being forced to buy insurance- to protect others from your actions.  You are a law-abiding citizen by buying it.  There is no benefit to you for having liability insurance other than protecting your personal assets in a law suit, though if your assets out-strip your policy limits they will go after those as well.

Problem is, I'm sure a fair amount of those who don't bother to get or keep liability insurance don't because either they have a slew of moving violations and accidents on their record and they are either un-able or un-willing to pay for it.  Ergo, they are a moving hazard to start with.

Others just figure it's always someone else's problem to be responsible, not theirs.

As it is now, an insurance company reserves the right for subrogation to go after another driver via your comprehensive or collision coverage.  I don't really see how "no-fault" would create any more attorneys in the system than it does now, unless no-fault insurance is essentially a comprehensive property damage policy and the number of comprehensive claims would go a lot higher than they are now.

Someone please explain if there is any real difference on remuneration from a no-fault or comprehensive/collision coverage.

The liability insurance issue is an on-going source of anger/aggravation to me.  Mainly because people who flout the law show a disrespect for other's property and I have a huge $%&*-on for personal responsibility.  

I've had one accident in 25+ years of driving.  That was when I was 17 and slid into a curb on the BA/I-44 cloverleaf exit when it was slick one night and I was going a little faster than was practical in the conditions.  Learned my lesson about the physics of a front wheel drive car going around corners too fast on slick roads. []

I'm not saying that I'm not capable of causing a wreck, but since past history is the best predictor of the future, the way I look at it, my next accident will likely be caused by someone else.  And there's a pretty good likelihood that it would be someone with no insurance.  That's why I carry comp and collision on my vehicle even though it's paid off.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by okiebybirth

Twenty-four states now have variations of no-fault auto insurance, but fierce opposition by the insurance industry and the legal profession has rendered many of these laws ineffective.[8] Under the adversarial system of fault insurance, 55 percent of those seriously injured receive no compensation, and the average monetary loss is $76,341. However, a U.S. Department of Transportation study showed that they receive only an "average of $3,742, or 5 percent of their loss." By contrast, in Michigan under no-fault insurance, 260 claims for "catastrophic" medical costs (more than $25,000) were compensated an average of $108,000 each. Of these, 32 percent were single-vehicle accidents where there was no other driver to sue. Fifteen percent of the single-vehicle accidents were motorcycle accidents, which are usually catastrophic. Such accidents are, under current insurance coverage, usually uncompensated.[9]

[8]   Tobias, Auto Insurance Alert, pp. 4, 54-61; Jeffrey O'Connell, The Lawsuit Lottery (New York: The Free Press/Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979), pp. 158-61.

[9]   Jeffrey O'Connell, Lawsuit Lottery, (New York: The Free Press/Macmillan Publishing Co., 1979), pp. 157-175.

http://www.ied.info/books/www/insurance.html

Interesting statistics.

[deinstein]

Make insurance laws more strict. No excuse not to have basic liability if you're an American and driving.

Make more illegals legal so they won't be scared to pay for insurance.

[Wilbur]

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.

That is mandated by state statute.  The tax man always gets his tax.

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.

While the link to insurance companies by computer is not in place, insurance companies are required to notify the state if someone drops their insurance.  The state then requests proof of insurance from the driver.  If they fail to provide that back to the state, the person's drivers license is suspended and the state authorizes the police to confiscate the car's license plate and the person's driver's license.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

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.

That is mandated by state statute.  The tax man always gets his tax.

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.

While the link to insurance companies by computer is not in place, insurance companies are required to notify the state if someone drops their insurance.  The state then requests proof of insurance from the driver.  If they fail to provide that back to the state, the person's drivers license is suspended and the state authorizes the police to confiscate the car's license plate and the person's driver's license.

You're still not getting the person off the road. Think about it. You couldn't have gotten the license plate without insurance. So either their license plate is already invalid or they are in the habit of buying insurance and then immediately canceling. Plus, nothing is being done to the at the scene when they are pulled over.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

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.

That is mandated by state statute.  The tax man always gets his tax.

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.

While the link to insurance companies by computer is not in place, insurance companies are required to notify the state if someone drops their insurance.  The state then requests proof of insurance from the driver.  If they fail to provide that back to the state, the person's drivers license is suspended and the state authorizes the police to confiscate the car's license plate and the person's driver's license.

Sounds like selective enforcement between the two laws.  I'm not in the habit of hanging out with scofflaws, but I've never heard of anyone getting their license suspended or tag confiscated over that.  I think impoundment of the vehicle should apply equally to O/D tags and no insurance.

Now, that being said, do the insurance companies report a "lapse" in coverage, or a flat cancellation?

[Wilbur]

...I've never heard of anyone getting their license suspended or tag confiscated over that.

Happens a lot, although, if you and your friends are in the habit of keeping everything up to date, that probably isn't something you would run into.

And it doesn't necessarily mean it is just dropped insurance.  Some people buy insurance, then drop it a month or two later because they found it cheaper some place else.  The first insurance company notifies the state, who sends out the notice to the driver.  The drivers who ignore the notice, still get their license suspended, even though they may still have insurance, just through a different company.

I think impoundment of the vehicle should apply equally to O/D tags and no insurance.

Contact your state representative.  There is nothing in statute that permits the police to tow a car for lack of insurance.

Now, that being said, do the insurance companies report a "lapse" in coverage,...

I'm not positive on that one.

Since oklahoma has a problem with uninsured motorists, and illegal immigrant motorists...

We have a far worse problem of legal residents with no insurance then we do with illegals.  There is nothing that prevents an illegal from purchasing insurance, and many have it.

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

If the rates are lower and I don't get dinged for making a claim on a wreck that is not my fault, I'll vote for it!

[cannon_fodder]

I call BS on the stats posted by okiebirth.   The claim that the 'average' loss in a car accident is $75,000 is simply asinine.   I worked for a very well known PI firm in town and saw way too many of these claims... I saw maybe 20% of claims that were over $75,000.  I would say your standard MVA is closer to $30,000 in Oklahoma.  Perhaps the average gets to 75,000 because you have the very rare case where the damages are extremely high (death = loss of consortium, future income, etc.).  In those instances no fault wont help either because it would far exceed most peoples payouts limits.

and 5%?  I call BS on that too.  Of the claims I know of the victim was compensated 100% the majority of the time - even after our fees (word of mouth is our best business model).  Those numbers are HORRIBLY skewed in part because the people that cause their own "catastrophic accident" receive no compensation.   As stated, the solo accidents and the guy who hits the front break a little hard and goes over the handlebars get nothing... as they hurt themselves.  

They are further skewed by people who do not comply with the current law.  Many people get no compensation because the bastard that him them has no insurance.   These people are not likely to comply with any future laws either... BUT WHEN THEY GET HURT THEY WILL SUE just the same.  The little pricks wont contribute to the system at all, but will get their money anyway.

Furthermore, the vast majority of accidents are minor accidents that do not get reported to the policy.  In fact, by law, accidents with damages less than a certain amount are not reported.  So all those LOW NUMBER cases arent included at all... but every high dollar case is.

And they are finished off by the monster damage claims that are over their policy limits.

I agree that a no-fault system sounds good.  I would love to pay for MY driving history and be able to collect based on what I pay in.  However, the system wont cure the problems cited as a need for a new system:

1) policy limits wont go up - so monster awards still wont be paid in full
2) people still wont comply with the law
3) you will still need an attorney to negotiate with your insurance company
4) insurance companies will still sue each other for subrogation
5) people without insurance will still sue you for money
6) people will still sure for funds above policy limits

So attorneys are just as much in the game as they were before and the payouts wont go up at all (common sense should tell you payouts wont go up unless premiums go up). As an added bonus, with no fault, if someone with no insurance runs into me:  I pay for it.  If I run into someone with no insurance - they sue me and I pay for it.  Win win!

Basically, what is this going to solve?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

...I've never heard of anyone getting their license suspended or tag confiscated over that.

Happens a lot, although, if you and your friends are in the habit of keeping everything up to date, that probably isn't something you would run into.

And it doesn't necessarily mean it is just dropped insurance.  Some people buy insurance, then drop it a month or two later because they found it cheaper some place else.  The first insurance company notifies the state, who sends out the notice to the driver.  The drivers who ignore the notice, still get their license suspended, even though they may still have insurance, just through a different company.

I think impoundment of the vehicle should apply equally to O/D tags and no insurance.

Contact your state representative.  There is nothing in statute that permits the police to tow a car for lack of insurance.

Now, that being said, do the insurance companies report a "lapse" in coverage,...

I'm not positive on that one.

Since oklahoma has a problem with uninsured motorists, and illegal immigrant motorists...

We have a far worse problem of legal residents with no insurance then we do with illegals.  There is nothing that prevents an illegal from purchasing insurance, and many have it.

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

If the rates are lower and I don't get dinged for making a claim on a wreck that is not my fault, I'll vote for it!

I'd like to see the stats on legal vs. illegal citizens buying LI.  Perhaps on gross numbers- yes, per capita no way.  I find that assertion to be highly suspect.  Illegal Hispanics are still a minority in Oklahoma so yes, I could swallow that the gross number is less.

Most illegals are petrified to have their name on any computer database somewhere.

[Rico]

One comment on the insurance problem that everyone is forced to deal with in one way or another..

Governor Keating took the wheels off the wagon on this when he did away with the "Safety Inspection" portion of the State Vehicle code.

I would like to see annual Safety inspections of all Motor Vehicles be part of the tag renewal process.. At that time you would also have to supply proof of Insurance to acquire your safety and license tag..

As the law is now... the cars on the road with you may or may not have brake lights that work, turn signals that work, tires with enough tread life to bring them to a stop at anything over 10 mph without going into a full skid mode, headlights that work, and also that they have an insurance policy that covers a minimum of liability..

California does this along with the annual "smog inspections required"... It seems to help.

Keating did a true injustice to the Oklahoma Motorists with allowing the "Safety Inspection" go bye bye..
[B)]

[sauerkraut]

People with no money to go after, or people with hidden money- or money in another country have no reason to buy insurance. Illegal aliens have nothing to lose by driving with no license or insurance. There's nothing they can do to them. it's even unlikely that they will get deported.It's a win-win for illegals no matter what they do. I wish I could drive uninsured and with no license too.

[cannon_fodder]

Sure there is something you can do - take the vehicle.

I dont care who owns it, unless it was stolen take it and sell it.  Bank owns it, too bad.  Banks usually require borrowers to have insurance anyway, so its not likely an issue.  It probably wouldnt settle everything, but at least its taking SOMETHING from the jerk that caused the damage.

[sgrizzle]

I'm sure it would always be their "brother's car."

[Conan71]

I heard on KRMG news at lunch a state law maker has made a proposal for seizure and sale of vehicles driven with no liability insurance.  I didn't catch the law maker's name, can't find the story on KRMG's web site and I don't have the time to research the house or senate web sites at the moment.

They said the proposal would allow for those who can prove they had insurance at the time of the stop to get their car back.  Otherwise, it would be sold at auction.

It's about time...