🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4h0pn3$nqn@cloner4.netcom.com> gvhunter@ix.netcom.com(Galen Hunter
) writes: 
>
>In <RLM.96Feb27074446@netcom9.netcom.com> rlm@netcom.com (Robert
>McMillin) writes: 
>>
>>On 25 Feb 1996 22:02:06 PDT, gvhunter@ix.netcom.com(Galen Hunter )
>said:
>>
>>> Per Prop. 103, there are three types of accidents classifications
>now
>>> (and probably the same if under "no-fault"):
>>
>>> 1. Not-at Fault
>>> 2. At-fault, no bodily injury, property damage only
>>> 3. At-fault with bodily injury
>>
>>> See my web page for more details on accident classifications:
>>> http://www.hntr.com/paradigm/autoaccd.html
>>> (Let me know if you want me to add anything to it.)
>>
>>> The difference between California now (or under no-fault) and
>>> Massachusetts then (your example) is - per Prop.103 an insurance
>>> company cannot non-renew you just for one at-fault (No BI)
accident.
>>
>>> This can start getting detailed. I'll leave it here for now.
>>
>>Where in the CVC (if that's where this law is) can we find this?
>
>Thanks for asking!
>
>It's in the California Insurance Code.
>
>Section 1861.02
>
>b. Every driver who meets the criteria of Section 1861.025 shall be
>qualified to purchase a Good Driver Discount policy from the insurer
of
>his or her choice.  An insurer shall not refuse to offer and sell a
>Good Driver policy to any person who meets the standards of this
>subdivision.
>
>Section 1861.025
>
>A person is qualified to purchase a Good Driver Discount policy if he
>of she meets all of the following critieria:
>--b. ....has not done any of the following...1. Had more than one
>violation point count ....the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an
>accident for which he or she was principally at fault which resulted
>only in damage to property shall receive one violation point ....
>
>Section 1861.03
>
>--c. .....a notice of cancellation or nonrenewal of a policy for
>automobile insurance shall be effective only if it is based on one or
>more of the following reasons: a. nonpayment; b. fraud or material
>misrepresentation affecting the policy or insured; c. a substantial
>increase in the hazard insured against.
>
>To summarize: An preferred (good driver discount) insurance company
can
>only nonrenew you for claims activity - if the activity results in you
>losing your "good driver" status.  One at-fault (no BI) accident by
>itself (within a three year period) won't do it. But, one at-fault (no
>BI) along with a ticket or another at-fault accident - could get you
>nonrenewed as a substantial increase in the hazard insured against.
>
>The point here is that, according to my very limited reading of the
>current "no-fault" proposal, under no-fault, there would be no changes
>in the California Insurance Code pertaining to the conditions under
>which a "good driver" could be nonrenewed.
>
>If anybody has better information on this, please let me know.
>
>Galen Hunter
>http://www.hntr.com/paradigm/
>
>
>
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?