🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4h21k2$ltn@cloner3.netcom.com> jdgjdg1@ix.netcom.com(Jim Green)
writes: 

>Good research! But what it says is that it works very much like
>Massachusetts in 76. More than one claim or one claim and one ticket
>means the insurance industry can suspend your right to drive. Who
>determines fault in no-fault?

Thanks for the compliment.  

I see where your headed, and I would like to try and go there.

First, the insurance companies cannot suspend your license.  The DMV
can suspend your license. The insurance companies are not the DMV. 
They have a relationship.  I have briefly read the "no-fault" proposal,
and I see - if under no-fault - no change in the relationship between
the DMV and the insurance companies.  

Any discussion, comparing and contrasting the relative merits of the
"no-fault" proposal vs. what we have today - you got to seperate, for
the purposes of discussion, each entity or organization, how they
function and how the relate to each other.

Just today, I hear someone say - they heard that (right now) if you
don't have insurance - the police will take your car.  There is so much
honest misunderstanding of the rules and relationships even now.  How
do you compare "apples for apples" the relative merits of no-fault vs.
today's system without going into *great* detail about the functions of
the DMV, the insurance companies, law enforcement, etc...?  

Anyway, back to your question - "who determines fault in no-fault?" The
implication is that the insurance companies are more likely (compared
to today and without reason - because it is in their interest) judge
you "at-fault" for an accident you really were not at fault for - so
they can make more money by making you lose your "good driver discount
policy" and make you purchase a more expensive policy or the DMV will
suspend your license and the police will take you car.  Did I get this
correct, I've read it several times in this thread.  I'd like to go
into this in detail, I swear, I don't have an answer already fixed in
my mind about this.  Yet, I must say, even now, I don't think (if under
no-fault) it would happen this way for the following (this time very
brief)reasons:

First of all, *state law* requires insurance companies to investigate
accidents their insureds were involved in and *state law* requires
insurance companies to investigate and determine if their insured was
at-fault or a percentage at-fault.

Re: individual accident situations:

I think everyone would agree that there is a large percentage of auto
accidents that are fairly clear as to which party was a fault.  Those
operators, under no-fault - as today, would be determined to be
at-fault and their rates would increase at renewal.  

Now, what about those "grey area" accidents, sort of 50/50 fault. 
Would the insurance companies, under no-fault, be more likely to
determine their insured's "at fault" as compared to what they are doing
today? 

Whoa, just ran out of time for this now.

Anyway, I was going to write about that Property damage only accidents
would be the same under no-fault as they are today and that *today*
many operators are involved in accidents that really wasn't their fault
but the insurance company determined it was their fault because it
would cost less to do that than go to court to try to fight it, so
under no-fault, there would be less of a tendency to do that.

Galen Hunter
http://www.hntr.com/paradigm/