no-fault insurance? WTF

[BLINGMW]

In the "well I did not know that" category, some trashy, potentially drunk lady on the wrong side of the road hits my sister's friend's car head on while vacationing in Michigan. Fortunately neither my sister, her friend, or the lady were hurt due to luck and it being a offset, glancing hit. Both cars are severely damaged, undrivable.
Cop shows up.......
......
...........3 hours later, cites the woman for something, and the woman admits she was fishing for something in her purse and wasn't paying attention, but because MI operates under a no-fault insurance scheme, each driver's insurance covers their own car. La la la, life goes on.

Well damn, that's pretty crazy IMHO. I've listed the states here (thanks wikipedia), I would recommend being doubly careful if you happen to visit one. Any thoughts? Anyone from these states who can explain why the hell it makes sense? It must save the courts and cops some time, and hey, who cares if someone is a reckless driver, it shouldn't cost them any more for their neglect? Most allow tort for injuries over a certain threshold, but some don't even allow that!

Florida
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Hawaii
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Minnesota
North Dakota
Utah

[Sully]

New york is a no-fault bodily injury state I believe to prevent frivolous lawsuits, as far as at fault in an accident, they do a precentage so in that case they might say the woman who was really at fault is 90% at fault but you sisters friend is 10% at fault for not seeing her and avoiding the accident or some bs like that...I believe this information is correct but I must also add that I live in virginia and have never lived in any other state.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[NTIman]

Sounds completely retarded to me. Kind of lets horrible drivers off pretty easy. Then again, from the drivers I've seen from PA, they're all horrible so I guess it doesn't matter there.

I think I'll just avoid the mentioned states. I'm surprised Maryland and California aren't on there, seems like they'd be the type to have a "doesn't matter who's at fault, spread the cost to the innocent" type of deal, like everything else they do.

[premiershine9]

Didn't even know Jersey operated under that scheme.......... good thing i'm only here 3 months out of the year. Just ran this by my parents (dads a reitred cop) and they confirmed it to be true. I'm pretty sure if you are both "moving" and not at a full stop then they claim you are both at fault.* At that time they then divide up the percentages like you said.

..........tack on another reason why I hate NJ haha

[BLINGMW]

from the drivers I've seen from PA, they're all horrible so I guess it doesn't matter there.

:lol: well that would actually make some sense. I guess, in one of these states, if you want to be considered a "good" driver, you have to be able to avoid any accident, no matter the circumstances.

Guys, I'm seeing anything about these percentages you mention. That would actually make sense and doesn't sound like no-fault to me. :dunno:

Well, I guess at least in Michigan's case, this little scheme didn't help, they have the highest insurance rates in the country. (also due to allowing for unlimited injury claims and a fairly high number of uninsured motorists)

[Sully]

^ Did you mean you are not seeing anything about the precentage based fault system? I'm pretty positive NY has it because I was talking to someone who got a small precentage from an accident he couldn't avoid and was in no possible way his fault causing a ding on his record and higher rates which is BS in my opinion...but I don't believe this has much to do with insurance besides theming charging you or paying, this is a police and dmv thing I believe which then translates to insurance but once again, I coudl be wrong

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

[Steve85]

I may be wrong but as I understand it, it forces the insurance companies to do battle so that you aren't fighting the other persons insurance company. If there was no clear at fault both insurance companies could blame the other driver. Nobody gets fixed without hiring lawyers to go after the others insurance.

I would like to believe that your rates would not go up in a situation where the police report indicates the other driver at fault and your insurance company claims from them.

[BLINGMW]

I would like to believe that your rates would not go up in a situation where the police report indicates the other driver at fault and your insurance company claims from them.

nope. That's how it can work in VA for example, but no, your insurance company has no legal recourse to go after the other's insurance company in these states. Only for the medical stuff and only over a certain threshold in most cases.

[Ken]

I have heard that percentage thing for here as well and also tried searching online, I'd have to ask someone who has been and find out. Personally, i think it makes sense as there are very few situations in which there was no fault on your part.

I also found something REALLY interesting here as well, apparently...
ÔÇ£In New York, as long as the driver is operating with the permission and consent of the owner, the owner is also legally responsible for any negligence. ThereÔÇÖs actually a presumption of permissive use in New York. ItÔÇÖs a rebuttable presumption. What that means is that itÔÇÖs presumed that the driver has permission and the burden falls to the owner to prove otherwise.ÔÇØ

that would suck balls if i loaned my car to a friend and had to deal with that shit.