🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4goib1$1vk@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, jdgjdg1@ix.netcom.com(Jim
Green) wrote:


> I was in the Coast Guard in 1976 in New England. Massachusets had a No
> Fault insurance law. It was written almost exactly like this one.
> Here's how it worked and how this one probably will.
> 
>  If you didn't have insurance you didn't get registration. If you got
> insurance, got your car registered, then cancelled your insurance, the
> insurance companies would contact DMV and they would suspend your
> registration. If stopped with suspended registration the police would
> seize your vehicle. These provisions are written into the proposed
> California law and police have already seized a few unregistered
> vehicles as test cases. 
> 
> 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. If
> you were cancelled by a company, no one else would write you a policy.
> The Insurance industry could effectively suspend your right to drive,
> even to and from work, if you filed claims against them. 


Massachusetts system was nothing like Prop 200 proposes to be.  First of
all, under 200 the system stays completely the same for property damage
(99% of the fraud comes from false medical claims).

Massachusetts also had a threshold of $2,000 of damages that, once
reached, you could sue.  That meant that people would see their doctor as
many times as it took to reach that magic barrier, and then sue. 
Comparing Massachusetts to Prop 200 is like comparing a rotten apple to a
tasty, fresh orange.

Sean Garrett