🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ga67r$rhs@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Sarah Malain  <jersar@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>The "argument against" in the pamphlet says that in other states 
>which had no fault, liability rates went up 40 percent in 4 years 
>compared to 1 percent in 4 years here and that several states
>that had no fault have repealed it.
>

Actually, that argument is misleading because nofault has been defined
many different ways.  In order to really do a comparison, you need to
look at exactly what determines the right to sue in a given state under
their nofault law.  Most states that claim(ed) to have nofault use a
dollar limit on damages to determine the right to sue - an approach that
inherently leads to fraud since people have incentive to fudge their claims
up above the dollar limit.  The only state that has a pure descriptive right
to sue in their nofault law is Michigan (you can only sue in case of loss
of life or limb).  

It is also misleading to look at just the premium.  My contention is that
the correct criterion to use is the percentage of the premiums that is 
returned to drivers to pay claims.  In the case of nofault, that number is
generally on the order of 80-90%, while it is as low as 20% in tort liability
states.  

I haven't read the exact text yet of the proposition on the March ballot
so I am reserving judgement on that.  But if there is a proposition for a
nofault law with a reasonable descriptive limit, I would support it.

Miriam Nadel