Congress is considering the "Auto Choice Reform Act," a federal "choice" no-fault auto insurance scheme. The bills (S.837, H.R. 1475), which are a top legislative priority of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), would force states to adopt one of two unfair auto insurance systems that motorists would have to purchase.
So far I agree---making people choose between two options, is no choice at all!
Under one system -- "pure" no fault -- consumers seriously injured in auto accidents completely forfeit their rights to recover non-economic damages (for intangible losses like permanent disfigurement, serious impairment of a bodily function such as blindness, loss of fertility or a limb, loss of a child, or excruciating life-long pain). This option is so unfair that no state in the country has allowed it.
This system is unfair, and borderline ridiculous. If thats pure "No-Fault" then i'm against it. I've run into this type of example before. These examples make No-Fault look "No-Fair". BUT Mandatory "Tort" systems are just as bad!!
We need another alternative.
Back to Page 1
Under the other system -- a distorted version of the "traditional tort law system" -- consumers are forced to pay much higher insurance rates and will only get access to the courts to sue a negligent driver to recover non-economic damages if the other driver who caused the accident, has also purchased traditional tort coverage.Although this may sound like a real choice, this plan gives consumers two grossly unfair options. Moreover, this plan would impose a federal one-size-fits-all scheme, overriding all current state auto insurance laws. But it contains no measures to actually bring down rates through regulation of the wasteful, inefficient and price-gouging practices of the insurance industry.
This other traditional Tort law system, (which is Mandatory in most states) being presented as an option is totally whack-O. When you have a wreck you have to cross your fingers that the other guy picked the same option you did!
Seems like something must be missing here. The government (or whoever came up with this idea) cant be this DUMB---can they?
"Choice" No Fault Is a Sham: Drivers Have No Choice!!
Under the bill, motorists must choose between no fault or a limited version of traditional tort law auto insurance coverage. But the rights of those who "choose" traditional tort law coverage depend on the "choices" made by other drivers. Full access to the courts under traditional tort law coverage is guaranteed only if the at-fault driver involved in an accident has purchased the same coverage. However, if the at-fault driver has chosen no fault, full court access is denied to the traditional tort law policy holder and he must collect from his or her insurance company. This will be a common result because many drivers will choose no fault.
If you didn't read the preceding opinion,- - go back and read it!--
Back to Page 1
The idea that a person should use their own insrance policy to cover any and all expenses, is an idea I have been putting forth for quite some time. - -see "My Proposal" - - But this "Choice" idea is pretty hard to understand!! It just seems like there has to be more to it!! The writer (of the above opinions) must not be representing this idea fully. I don't want to believe our senator's, etc. are that stupid!!! Scandalous, liers, or dishonest,- - I can believe that. But plain ole stupid?? I don't think so!!!
"Choice" No Fault Means Good Drivers Pay for Bad!!
Traditional tort law coverage operates on a basic principle of fairness: Those who cause auto accidents should be held fully accountable for their actions. In the event of an accident, the insurance company representing the driver responsible for the accident is the one that pays. But under "choice" no fault both parties are held equally responsible no matter who caused the accident and each party goes to his or her own insurance company to recover loss. Bad drivers are immune from suit and are not held accountable. No fault guts the principle that a consistently safe driver should be rewarded with lower insurance rates and that bad drivers should be penalized with higher rates -- an incentive for safer driving. By effectively lowering the cost of insurance to at-fault drivers, more bad drivers will find their way onto the roads and cause more accidents.
Back to Page 1
The idea this guy is against is EXACTLY the way it should be!!
No one will get off scot free!!--There's still police reports, tickets, traffic court and everything else that goes along with being at fault in an accident.
Why people call it "getting off scot free" is beyond me. What in the \\$%#@ is wrong with using the insurance your paying for? With the understanding that the insurance companies CAN NOT raise your rates for filing a claim!
No-Fault "Choice" Is a Bad Deal for States and Consumers!!---
S. 837/H.R. 1475 mandate a more restrictive policy than current state no-fault laws. All state no-fault plans currently contain "thresholds," measured either by the seriousness of injury or death, or a specific monetary amount of medical expenses incurred. If injuries rise above the threshold level, injured parties may try to recover non-economic damages from reckless drivers, holding them fully accountable through the civil justice system. Thresholds are burdensome obstacles for injured parties trying to recover full compensation. But as restrictive as thresholds are, the McConnell-Armey plan eradicates all state threshold provisions, providing no means for good drivers to hold bad drivers fully accountable for non-economic damages they cause. No allowance is made even for individuals who suffer the trauma of severe burns or a lifetime disability that is the result of obvious carelessness. No state in the country has gone as far as this proposal in eliminating rights to recover non-economic damages or holding reckless drivers accountable. No one could be held accountable for a child’s death. Under this bill, if a child is killed by a reckless or negligent driver who has chosen no-fault coverage, the child’s parents would only be able to recover medical expenses, if there were any, and burial expenses. In effect, the child’s life would be worthless and no one could be held accountable for the child’s death. The bill would impose complicated legal choices on every driver. Faced with a complicated choice of two or more different liability systems, drivers would find it difficult to make an informed decision about waiving their legal rights. Worse still, this legislation acknowledges that misunderstandings are likely by immunizing insurance agents from liability if they fail to adequately explain or disclose the complex choices to their clients. If policyholders have been in a serious accident and do not have adequate coverage, they have no legal recourse against their insurance company, the agent who may have inadequately advised them, or in many cases, the driver who caused their injuries. This bill leaves consumers out in the cold.
