🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4gslp9$l1j@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, stan@bombay.gps.caltech.edu wrote:

>Hmmm.  It sounds like they are trying to say that people in LA are falsely 
>claiming injury in an attempt to milk the insurance system.  I think that 
>this is not necessarily the case.  I find it hard to believe that 99 out of 

Sounds to me like you have not lived in Southern CA long enough!

Here in CA (LA in particular), anybody will sue for anything.  You have to
be careful not to walk on someone's lawn for fear of getting sued for
ruining their *potential* million dollar award-winning garden.  I have had
friends who have been sued for 5 mph fender-benders by 4 different people
all claiming bodily injury.  My brother was even sued by an uninsured
driver with a suspended licence who *ran into him* and got his car
repaired so he could go back on the road without insurance or a licence
(this was due to his crappy insurance company and their lack of support
for their policy-holders ... 20th Century Insurance SUCKS ... they keep
their rates low by not fighting for their customers .. they just pay to
stay out of court and drop anyone who gets into an accident regardless of
fault ... but that's a different topic).

The fact is, when it comes to insurance, no-fault is the ONLY way it
should be.  Right now, the law requires you to carry, at a minimum,
liability insurance to drive a car.  This means that you are paying $$$ to
cover SOMEONE ELSE in case you get into an accident, cause damage and/or
injury, *AND* it is YOUR fault.  If these criterion are not met, liability
doesn't cover JACK.

Take a look at your next insurance statment.  If you are paying for full
coverage (like myself), more than half of your premium is for LIABILITY. 
If you don't have full coverage, ALL of your premium is for LIABILITY. 
This means that MOST or ALL of your insurance is to pay for someone else.

I ask, is there any other insurance system that works like this?  How
about your homeowner's or renter's insurance?  Are you paying $$$ in case
you damage someone else's house?  How about life insurance?  Is this to
cover you in the case of someone else's death?  No.  Then why should you
pay car insurance to cover someone else.  Especially when the odds are
that other person is not doing the same for you?

If you get into an accident or your car is damaged or you are injured in
some way, YOUR insurance company SHOULD pay YOU *immediately*, regardless
of the circumstances.  Afterward, they can go about determining whether or
not someone else should reimburse them.  But YOU as an consumer paying
mucho $$$ for INSURANCE should NOT have to worry about this.  This is the
meaning of NO-FAULT.  Not that no one is at fault, but that the fault is
insignificant in your reimbursment of a claim.

I have not read the current not fault proposal yet, but unless it is
REALLY poorly written, I have to be for it.  There are a few requirements
that it should include (like the inability to raise your premium unless
you were determined to be at fault).  But I am absolutely 100% in favor of
a NO-FAULT car insurance system.  I have about 1000 more reasons why I
support this, but they are too lengthy to go into right now (most of them
have to do with bullsh*t lawsuits).

Just my 2 pennies...

Chris

**********************************************************************
*  Chris Anthes                  *  Work - mailto:chrisa@dsea.com    *
*                                *  Home - mailto:chrisa@eworld.com  *
*                                *         mailto:canthes@aol.com    *
**********************************************************************
*  Good things come to those who wait,                               *
*  But crap shows up right away.                        - Rich Hall  *
**********************************************************************