🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4g8mpq$c18@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> jersar@ix.netcom.com(Sarah Malain
) writes: 

>One thing the law does is declare open season on uninsured drivers--
>you could hit them, the fault all yours, and they could not sue
>you.  Oh, and fault will still be determined so that the insurance
>companies can decide whose rates to raise.

OK, good point. Let's break this down into more detail then.

My understanding of the current "no-fault" proposal is that it changes
only the bodily injury part of the accident. You can't sue each other
for medical bills and pain & suffering. However things stay the same
for physical damage to each others vehicles.  You still go after each
other to determine who is "at-fault" so the insurance company of the at
fault party has to pay to fix the others vehicle (but not pay their
medical bills).  Do I have this right?

If so, it makes sense for the insurance companies to have an interest
in still determining who is at-fault because 1. they will try to avoid
paying to fix the other parties vehicle, and 2. if a person is in
repeated auto accidents and racking up medical bills for themselves,
the insurance company will want to charge that person more premium,
because that person has a higher probability of getting into another
accident and the company pays out more. (hey, I'm just trying to figure
this out too). 

Anyway, back to your original comment about "open season on uninsured
motorist". It may not work out that way, because of the disincentives
(higher insurance rates, DMV may suspend that persons licence, etc..).

Regards,

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