 |
No Fault Insurance: For Better or For Worse?
by Ina Segurian
http://www.gapinsurances.com
If you~re fortunate, or depending on how you look at it,
unfortunate to live in one of the twelve states that are
under a non-fault auto insurance system, you can cause an
accident, yet your insurance company won~t pay for the
other parties~ damages.
In a no fault state, the law states that drivers must
have insurance for their own protection, regardless of
who causes an accident. Your company would pay for the
damages you suffer regardless of fault, and the other
driver's insurance company would pay for their loss.
The theory is that since we all agree to be responsible
for ourselves that there will be no uninsured motorists
in these states. Well, interesting "theory".
These states opted for the no fault insurance system
because it guarantees every driver immediate medical
treatment in the event of an accident. Further, it's
intended to reduce the legal and administrative fees
associated with insurance claims. Again, in theory,
this should equate to lower premiums. Unfortunately,
often times the liability issues that still remain
will actually drive premium costs up.
Since, even in theory, no state is purely non fault,
drivers can still be held financially responsible for
injuries caused by them. The victim may still have the
right to sue if the injuries meet certain standards of
severity.
Outlined below is an interesting case of a classic no
fault situation: A lady lived in a 4-plex apartment
building that had a 4 stall covered garage and a 4-car
wide driveway. The standard practice was for tenants
to pull into the driveway to turn around before heading
out to the street.
On one occassion, a tenant was going on an errand and
began the usual process of pulling into the driveway to
turn around. She was surprised when she felt a bump.
When she got out to investigate, she found that she had
run over a neighbor who was still underneath her car.
Understandably upset, she ran into her apartment to
call EMS.
While in her apartment, a neighbor from across the
street, having seen the accident, ran over and was able
to move the car enough to allow the victim to crawl out
from underneath. The driver was convinced that she had
caused her neighbor some serious injuries.
The victim stated that she was fine and did not want to
go to the hospital. However the police and paramedics
insisted and wound up transporting her to the hospital.
It turns out that the "victim" was sunbathing behind
her car, out of sight of the driver. Fortunately, she
suffered no broken bones and no internal injuries. She
did, however, have a tire track from her right thigh
to her stomach.
The driver felt responsible and terrible and wanted to
help her neighbor by making it up to her. So she
her insurance company to report what happened. Her
insurance company, while toalking to the lady, learned
that the victim had her own insurance and car. Since
they were in a no fault state, the driver was told that
the victims own insurance would have to cover any
claims, regardless of who cause the accident.
Interesting No-Fault system, wouldn~t you say?
Submit An Article
|
|  |
