dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| reply to Cabal
Re: About time
said by Cabal  : a no-fault state like Commie-chusetts Excuse me, that is the Glorious People's Republic of Massachusetts.  |
|
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by major marco :I still don't give a shit about your rates. Idiot drivers who cripple other drivers through negligence should be sued until their assholes bleed. Then take the driver to court and sue him, not his insurance company the case doesn't fuck everyone else's rates over. Damn, how hard is that to understand.  You suing him=using his insurance company. His insurance company will defend him and if he is found at fault(guilty) then insurance company will pay out max under his policy and rest will be his responsibility. For example on my business vehicle i got 3 million insurance coverage. That means my insurance will pay up to 3 mil and anything beyond that is my responsibility
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on tv |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
2 edits | reply to major marco
Actually forget it... The fact that you were a victim of an accident that left you severely injured makes it impossible to discuss this rationally. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :Then take the driver to court and sue him, not his insurance company the case doesn't fuck everyone else's rates over. Damn, how hard is that to understand. It's not hard to understand at all. What you aren't understanding is that drivers who are negligent and cripple other drivers usually don't make enough $$$$$ to cover the cost of a single day's stay in the hospital, nevermind cover 2 wks in the hospital, a 5 hr surgery to put back together a shattered tibia, and 2 yrs of PT after the fact. The idiot's insurance company, however, does.
--
The Toll
|
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :I still don't give a shit about your rates. Idiot drivers who cripple other drivers through negligence should be sued until their assholes bleed. Then take the driver to court and sue him, not his insurance company the case doesn't fuck everyone else's rates over. Damn, how hard is that to understand.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to bmn
said by bmn : I give a shit about my rates since its my damn money, not yours. I'm tired of paying out of the ass to cover the overinflated claims that are out there. I still don't give a shit about your rates. Idiot drivers who cripple other drivers through negligence should be sued until their assholes bleed.
--
The Toll
|
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Cabal
I think that even in no-fault states you can get back your deductible if the other driver is found to be at fault.
I know that NY is also a no-fault state, and I just got back my deductible from someone who nearly t-boned me, because he didn't look. He said that my lights weren't on, and I have automatic headlights!
Check with the insurance company... You might be able to get back your deductible, and your insurance company will take that accident off of your record, because you can prove that the other driver was at fault, beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
MJRudzik
join:2002-01-13
Independence, MO
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :said by pnh102 : Right, but it eliminates the problem of the other person having no or insufficient insurance. If either of those is the case in an accident, no-fault insurance can save your ass short term while you take them to civil court. That maybe the case... But having to drive in a state where there are so many uninsured and underinsured drivers, no-fault would actually work in favor of those who are insured properly. No fault only benefits the insurance company. they get to double dip by raising the rates of both drivers after an accident regardless of fault. No fault Certainly does not work in the favor of drivers. You mention properly insured drivers. Well those are the drivers that add the "Uninsured Motorist" rider to their policy. The Fee for this additional coverage is small especially compared to the compound loss of discounts and accident charges applied by most insurance companies after a chargeable accident, which in a no fault state is every accident you're in whether at fault or not. In Missouri there are certain things that are your fault period. Rear ending another car for example is your fault no ifs ands or buts. And that's as it should be. You are responsible for know the physical distance your car will require to stop and follow at a distance that is appropriate. Becasuse the law assigns fault to the driver that rear ended me my isnurance company is precluded from raising my rates when I make a claim under the unisured motorist rider. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to iMonkey
said by iMonkey :yeah really, better yet, probably said by someone who has had to pay out for "frivilous payments" to a motorist he hit before. More along the lines of someone who did work on improving techniques for catching people faking injuries from car accidents, at work or in non-automotive accidents in order to get some ambulance chaser to sue someone for an inflated award or to increase their workers comp claim. These types of fraudulent claims affect everyone's rates.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :said by bmn :If you want money beyond medical costs, lost wages and auto repairs, take the person to civil court. You can't. That's how no-fault states work. As no-fault was proposed when it was discussed in this state, if fault was assigned by a citation, you could not get from insurance company anything more than actual damages. If you wanted to sue for anything in addition to actual losses - pain and suffering, etc. - you would have to take the person to court on their own without their insurance company being involved. That way, the person responsible would be liable for any judgment and any court costs, not the insurance company who was not the one at fault.
Clearly this proposal was unique then... However, there must still be some way to sue the individual if you really need to.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :What if either of the people involved do not carry enough coverage under a no-fault policy? Simply having a no-fault clause in an insurance policy doesn't raise the amount of coverage provided by the policy. Then both of them are stuck up Shit Creek with no paddle. All no-fault would do is protect a properly insured person when an improperly insured person hits them. For example, if I am hit by an uninsured or underinsured person, I get nothing to help fix my car or to cover my bills. Under no-fault, I am guaranteed payment for my expenses.
But if the drivers are uninsured, then they won't have any policy, either no-fault or otherwise. These situations occur when people who drive illegally are not suitably punished for doing so.
Yes they are. They end up suitably screwed. No car, medical bills and no way to pay for it. Additionally, they face criminal punishment - fines, etc.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :If you want money beyond medical costs, lost wages and auto repairs, take the person to civil court. You can't. That's how no-fault states work.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :Right, but it eliminates the problem of the other person having no or insufficient insurance. If either of those is the case in an accident, no-fault insurance can save your ass short term while you take them to civil court. What if either of the people involved do not carry enough coverage under a no-fault policy? Simply having a no-fault clause in an insurance policy doesn't raise the amount of coverage provided by the policy.
said by bmn :That maybe the case... But having to drive in a state where there are so many uninsured and underinsured drivers, no-fault would actually work in favor of those who are insured properly. But if the drivers are uninsured, then they won't have any policy, either no-fault or otherwise. These situations occur when people who drive illegally are not suitably punished for doing so.
said by bmn :You wouldn't have to worry about having to take the other person to court to recoup the costs of medical bills and auto repairs. When the situation gets this bad, then everyone's premiums just get to be higher than they should be.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
iMonkey
join:2006-04-25
Fallbrook, CA
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :said by bmn :Sorry, and what's wrong with that? You've got your car repaired and your medical costs covered. Anything more would be frivilous Spoken by someone who obviously has never been injured/crippled by an idiot driver. yeah really, better yet, probably said by someone who has had to pay out for "frivilous payments" to a motorist he hit before.
hmm |
|
Markus
join:2005-05-27
Middlesboro, KY
| reply to bmn
Well said, badmagicnumber; I completely agree with all you've said here.
These days, people can't seem to accept that "shit happens". When some ill befalls a person these days, they immediately look for ways to exploit it beyond all bounds instead of taking care of it in a reasonable manner and moving on with their lives.
--
SpaceBuffs.com |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :The main problem with no-fault insurance is that if someone hits you, your insurance has to pay for the damages that said person did to your car. Right, but it eliminates the problem of the other person having no or insufficient insurance. If either of those is the case in an accident, no-fault insurance can save your ass short term while you take them to civil court.
So your premiums go up even though you had nothing to do with the accident. That maybe the case... But having to drive in a state where there are so many uninsured and underinsured drivers, no-fault would actually work in favor of those who are insured properly. You wouldn't have to worry about having to take the other person to court to recoup the costs of medical bills and auto repairs.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to bmn
The main problem with no-fault insurance is that if someone hits you, your insurance has to pay for the damages that said person did to your car. So your premiums go up even though you had nothing to do with the accident.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :And BTW, 99% of all insurance claims are civil matters unless the driver was DWI or some other criminal liability. Whether the case is civil or criminal is largely irrelevant to your rates. As the little teenage brats say, "No duh"... But how much the payout is in all of those cases IS what affects your rates. The more grossly inflated awards that are given, the more rates for up everyone. A lot of the court cases out there are totally fraudulent too - malingerers look to get some cash (I know, as we did several studies on it).
Don't preach to someone who has been permanently injured by someone else's negligence behind the wheel. As someone who was crippled for two years by an idiot driver and twelve years later, crippled again for another year by another idiot driver, I don't give two shits what your rates are. And don't preach to me... I give a shit about my rates since its my damn money, not yours. I'm tired of paying out of the ass to cover the overinflated claims that are out there.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to bmn
said by bmn :No, someone who is sick of people causing rates to go up [...] So you have been injured and/or crippled by another driver? I seriously doubt it. Not with your mentality. If you were sitting here in a chair knowing you'll never walk again because of an idiot driver you put you there permanently, you wouldn't be blithely complaining about your rates.
And BTW, 99% of all insurance claims are civil matters unless the driver was DWI or some other criminal liability. Whether the case is civil or criminal is largely irrelevant to your rates.
Don't preach to someone who has been permanently injured by someone else's negligence behind the wheel. As someone who was crippled for two years by an idiot driver and twelve years later, crippled again for another year by another idiot driver, I don't give two shits what your rates are.
--
The Toll
|
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to major marco
said by major marco :said by bmn :Sorry, and what's wrong with that? You've got your car repaired and your medical costs covered. Anything more would be frivilous Spoken by someone who obviously has never been injured/crippled by an idiot driver. No, someone who is sick of people causing rates to go up by getting ridiculously inflated rewards from lawsuits that the insurance company ends up paying out and in turn, passing on that expense to everyone.
If you want money beyond medical costs, lost wages and auto repairs, take the person to civil court. I'm tired of paying insane insurance rates because people think they deserve huge pain and suffering awards that are paid by the insurance companies.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
