🚀 go-pugleaf

Isn't  fault in no-fault an oxymoron ?

woo@rtd.com

In article <4h5u1l$ag7@cloner4.netcom.com> gvhunter@ix.netcom.com(Galen Hunter ) writes:

[...]

   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/