🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4gqbaj$n3q@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> jdgjdg1@ix.netcom.com(Jim Green)
writes: 

>Here's the good part. No fault, was your fault. No matter what
>happened, even if someone backed into your car in a parking lot,
>You contacted your Insurance company who paid claims. If you filed a
>claim in Massachusetts you could pretty well figure on your premiums
>(already the highest in the nation at the time) tripling. If you filed
>more than one claim in a three year period, you would be cancelled.

I'm not convinced that determination of fault in an accident (by the
insurance company) will be any different under "no-fault" than it is
now.

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.

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