No Fault Car Insurance
No fault car insurance in some form or another is alive and well in about half of the nations' states. Basically, no fault or blameless coverage means that in minor accidents, there is no opportunity to sue others in minor accidents and the accient coverage companies take care of their own customers' needs instead of perhaps being responsible for the other guy as well. In most cases, there is a damage limit for the blameless coverage, and beyond that tort law begins to take effect. Tort law is the more readily identifiable practice of paying for all the damage if it is your fault. In essence, no fault car insurance was enacted to limit the guy coming out of the car after being rear ended and complaining of whiplash with intents to bring about a frivolous lawsuit.
Before even talking about the cost of no fault car insurance, a study by the Insurance Research Council as well as the Bureau of Statistics needs to be mentioned. It did conclude that in the states where this approach was taken for auto coverage, the statistics raised the question that blameless coverage might encourage drivers to be less careful. Whether that is true or not, there are several types of approaches that various states take in enacting these laws. In all states where the blameless approach is embraced, drivers are allowed to sue once a certain threshold is reached through the extent of the injury being described verbally, or in monetary terms. There can be many times in our lives when we wonder where God is and even those in the Bible sometime had those thoughts, but He is right here. "How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord? Forever? How long wilt thou hide they face from me? But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation and I will sing unto the Lord because He hath dealt bountifully with me." (Psalm 13:1, 5, 6)
Three states allow drivers to choose between the blameless method of coverage and the tort method. Drivers are not allowed to change their mind once the policy has been written. In cases where the driver does not choose, the default goes to the no fault car insurance choice in two states' cases and the tort method in one. Those who are harsh critics of the blameless method contend that it opens the door for medical providers to exaggerate one's medical injuries in order to arrive at the threshold for suing. They also contend that suing on the verbal description of the injuries can lead to over compensation by the courts.
In the end there are two reasons why no fault car insurance is enacted. First is to reduce all the petty lawsuits that regularly clog so many courts after a property damage accident. Wrapped also in this problem of frivolous suits is the slow nature of the courts to act. Attorneys are able to have suits postponed again and again in the attempt to forgo judgment and so the states that have enacted blameless coverage have seen the court system's case load drop dramatically from the lack and pain and suffering traffic suits. In theory, blameless auto coverage reduces the cost of insurance for the driver and the insuring companies as well as allowing courts to concentrate on more important issues.
The reality is that "no one is to blame" car coverage is some of the most expensive coverage in the country. One of the problems goes back to the idea of there being no incentive for drivers to use safer driving habits. When there are no consequences for certain destructive driving violations coverage rates do go up. No fault car insurance does mean that in an accident there are two drivers that must be covered when in the tort system one driver might forgo reporting to one's auto coverage company. Fraud in the form of people without health coverage reporting more injury than actually experienced in an accident has also raised the price of blameless coverage. In reality, the states that allow no fault car insurance have the highest premiums on the country, completely negating the idea of making insurance more affordable through the adoption of blameless auto coverage.
No fault does not mean no insurance and many people who are in the states where blameless coverage is enforced are under the false impression that they are not required to have insurance. But in the states where the blameless system is in place traffic laws have adopted the stance that when a person does not have insurance, they are automatically to blame, no matter the circumstance of the mishap. Just like in states that use the tort system, drivers in no fault car insurance states must carry a minimum of insurance on liability and medical coverage. It is incumbent upon the driver looking for insurance to consider all the circumstances under which an accident occurs and purchase as much coverage as possible, particularly in blameless states where the only coverage one can expect is what is prescribed in a person's own policy. For those living in states using the blameless system of auto coverage, a serious comparison of not only auto rates but also the detailed coverage should be pursued, and this can be done online with most providers. Even in blameless states, drivers are still held accountable when they don't have state mandated auto coverage, so don't make the mistake of believing that don't ask don't tell will work for you.
Before even talking about the cost of no fault car insurance, a study by the Insurance Research Council as well as the Bureau of Statistics needs to be mentioned. It did conclude that in the states where this approach was taken for auto coverage, the statistics raised the question that blameless coverage might encourage drivers to be less careful. Whether that is true or not, there are several types of approaches that various states take in enacting these laws. In all states where the blameless approach is embraced, drivers are allowed to sue once a certain threshold is reached through the extent of the injury being described verbally, or in monetary terms. There can be many times in our lives when we wonder where God is and even those in the Bible sometime had those thoughts, but He is right here. "How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord? Forever? How long wilt thou hide they face from me? But I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation and I will sing unto the Lord because He hath dealt bountifully with me." (Psalm 13:1, 5, 6)
Three states allow drivers to choose between the blameless method of coverage and the tort method. Drivers are not allowed to change their mind once the policy has been written. In cases where the driver does not choose, the default goes to the no fault car insurance choice in two states' cases and the tort method in one. Those who are harsh critics of the blameless method contend that it opens the door for medical providers to exaggerate one's medical injuries in order to arrive at the threshold for suing. They also contend that suing on the verbal description of the injuries can lead to over compensation by the courts.
In the end there are two reasons why no fault car insurance is enacted. First is to reduce all the petty lawsuits that regularly clog so many courts after a property damage accident. Wrapped also in this problem of frivolous suits is the slow nature of the courts to act. Attorneys are able to have suits postponed again and again in the attempt to forgo judgment and so the states that have enacted blameless coverage have seen the court system's case load drop dramatically from the lack and pain and suffering traffic suits. In theory, blameless auto coverage reduces the cost of insurance for the driver and the insuring companies as well as allowing courts to concentrate on more important issues.
The reality is that "no one is to blame" car coverage is some of the most expensive coverage in the country. One of the problems goes back to the idea of there being no incentive for drivers to use safer driving habits. When there are no consequences for certain destructive driving violations coverage rates do go up. No fault car insurance does mean that in an accident there are two drivers that must be covered when in the tort system one driver might forgo reporting to one's auto coverage company. Fraud in the form of people without health coverage reporting more injury than actually experienced in an accident has also raised the price of blameless coverage. In reality, the states that allow no fault car insurance have the highest premiums on the country, completely negating the idea of making insurance more affordable through the adoption of blameless auto coverage.
No fault does not mean no insurance and many people who are in the states where blameless coverage is enforced are under the false impression that they are not required to have insurance. But in the states where the blameless system is in place traffic laws have adopted the stance that when a person does not have insurance, they are automatically to blame, no matter the circumstance of the mishap. Just like in states that use the tort system, drivers in no fault car insurance states must carry a minimum of insurance on liability and medical coverage. It is incumbent upon the driver looking for insurance to consider all the circumstances under which an accident occurs and purchase as much coverage as possible, particularly in blameless states where the only coverage one can expect is what is prescribed in a person's own policy. For those living in states using the blameless system of auto coverage, a serious comparison of not only auto rates but also the detailed coverage should be pursued, and this can be done online with most providers. Even in blameless states, drivers are still held accountable when they don't have state mandated auto coverage, so don't make the mistake of believing that don't ask don't tell will work for you.
No Fault Car Insurance
![]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
1:16 AM
Rating:
