Lawsuits with no insurance

[nobspeople]

You like in a state where it's the law to have a minimum of liability insurance.
You have insurance.
Someone hits you at an intersection (their fault) and damages both cars where they need towed away.
The other person has no insurance because they didn't think it was necessary (their words).

Your insurance foots the bill. Should you or your insurance sue the other person?
If yes, for how much? Fixing of the car or 'take them to the cleaners'?"

If no, why not?

[JoeyKnothead]

You like in a state where it's the law to have a minimum of liability insurance.
You have insurance.
Someone hits you at an intersection (their fault) and damages both cars where they need towed away.
The other person has no insurance because they didn't think it was necessary (their words).

Your insurance foots the bill. Should you or your insurance sue the other person?
If yes, for how much? Fixing of the car or 'take them to the cleaners'?"

If no, why not?

If I pay the repair bills, I sue.

If my insurance pays, they sue.

Whomsoever lost the funds seeks remittances.

[Purple Knight]

You like in a state where it's the law to have a minimum of liability insurance.
You have insurance.
Someone hits you at an intersection (their fault) and damages both cars where they need towed away.
The other person has no insurance because they didn't think it was necessary (their words).

Your insurance foots the bill. Should you or your insurance sue the other person?
If yes, for how much? Fixing of the car or 'take them to the cleaners'?"

If no, why not?

This is just a messed up system that shouldn't exist. Mandatory insurance shouldn't be a thing in the first place. Laws that reward people who break them? In my world that's called ridiculous. A contradiction in terms. Yet mandatory insurance does just that.

If people want to drive around penniless and take the chance that they'll ruin someone's car and can't pay, they should go to jail. They can make license plates in jail until they pay it off. The government can front you the money in the meantime, since they'll be getting it back. If he refuses to work, sell his organs.

Now, if you want to avoid that horror, buy insurance. But it shouldn't be mandatory to pay people who are making a tidy profit because it's mandatory.

[Miles]

You like in a state where it's the law to have a minimum of liability insurance.
You have insurance.
Someone hits you at an intersection (their fault) and damages both cars where they need towed away.
The other person has no insurance because they didn't think it was necessary (their words).

Your insurance foots the bill. Should you or your insurance sue the other person?
If yes, for how much? Fixing of the car or 'take them to the cleaners'?"

If no, why not?

This is just a messed up system that shouldn't exist. Mandatory insurance shouldn't be a thing in the first place. Laws that reward people who break them? In my world that's called ridiculous. A contradiction in terms. Yet mandatory insurance does just that.

If people want to drive around penniless and take the chance that they'll ruin someone's car and can't pay, they should go to jail. They can make license plates in jail until they pay it off. The government can front you the money in the meantime, since they'll be getting it back. If he refuses to work, sell his organs.

Now, if you want to avoid that horror, buy insurance. But it shouldn't be mandatory to pay people who are making a tidy profit because it's mandatory.

I take it then that instead of someone's insurance company paying you for the damage they did to your car, that you'd rather file legal charges against them and go to court in order to get the money out of them, which they may well not have. Interesting.



.

[JoeyKnothead]

You like in a state where it's the law to have a minimum of liability insurance.
You have insurance.
Someone hits you at an intersection (their fault) and damages both cars where they need towed away.
The other person has no insurance because they didn't think it was necessary (their words).

Your insurance foots the bill. Should you or your insurance sue the other person?
If yes, for how much? Fixing of the car or 'take them to the cleaners'?"

If no, why not?

This is just a messed up system that shouldn't exist. Mandatory insurance shouldn't be a thing in the first place. Laws that reward people who break them? In my world that's called ridiculous. A contradiction in terms. Yet mandatory insurance does just that.

If people want to drive around penniless and take the chance that they'll ruin someone's car and can't pay, they should go to jail. They can make license plates in jail until they pay it off. The government can front you the money in the meantime, since they'll be getting it back. If he refuses to work, sell his organs.

Now, if you want to avoid that horror, buy insurance. But it shouldn't be mandatory to pay people who are making a tidy profit because it's mandatory.

I take it then that instead of someone's insurance company paying you for the damage they did to your car, that you'd rather file legal charges against them and go to court in order to get the money out of them, which they may well not have. Interesting.



.

Don't forget the price of kidneys in today's market!

Draconian.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #3]

Mandatory insurance shouldn't be a thing in the first place.

Yet it is because someone damaged by another can't always 'wait' for the on doing the damage to 'pay it off' while in jail.

The government can front you the money in the meantime, since they'll be getting it back.

Then everyone will be running into everyone waiting for a government payout. Nah people need to be responsible for their own actions and not allow others to suffer for their laziness IMO.

If he refuses to work, sell his organs.

What kind of PURGE world would this be?!?

But it shouldn't be mandatory to pay people who are making a tidy profit because it's mandatory.

Insurance companies do tend to charge a lot and offer little when it's needed. Crooks and all of that. But it's not a perfect world and, until it moves closer to that....

[Purple Knight]

I take it then that instead of someone's insurance company paying you for the damage they did to your car,

They're always uninsured so that doesn't happen. Both times I've been hit. The first time I was hit, I had the uninsured driver coverage. My insurance company gave me nothing, so I dropped it.

Libertarians love mandatory car insurance because it equals mass profits for a private company.

Then everyone will be running into everyone waiting for a government payout.

The person at fault gets nothing. Also I don't think you read my post.

[nobspeople]

I take it then that instead of someone's insurance company paying you for the damage they did to your car,

They're always uninsured so that doesn't happen. Both times I've been hit. The first time I was hit, I had the uninsured driver coverage. My insurance company gave me nothing, so I dropped it.

Libertarians love mandatory car insurance because it equals mass profits for a private company.

Then everyone will be running into everyone waiting for a government payout.

The person at fault gets nothing. Also I don't think you read my post.

I did. It didn't make much logical sense. Unless I miss-understood something? Please point to what I may have missed and I'd be happy to retract and or correct my statement. Otherwise, people need to be responsible for their own actions and not allow others to suffer for their laziness IMO.

[Purple Knight]

Please point to what I missed and I'd be happy to retract my statement.

So here's how it works now: You get hit, the party responsible doesn't pay, and your insurance doesn't either. Maybe you have money for a good lawyer to take your insurance company to task, but maybe you don't. Meanwhile you have to pay your insurance company just to drive your car and the uninsured person turns out his pockets, says oh well, and continues to do whatever he wants with no punishment. If they take away his license, he'll just drive without one. He didn't care that he was breaking one law before, so breaking two now is no biggie.

My suggestion is that the government acts as an insurance company and extracts the money to pay for damaged vehicles from those responsible. They can either make sure everyone pays with draconian measures like selling their organs if they refuse to work, or they can at least punish people with jail time who don't pay, which would at least be a deterrent. There doesn't seem to be any deterrent now.

Countries with government health care have better health care than free-market countries with mandatory insurance because a large part of the resources of an insurance company are spent lawyering out of fitting the bills. The cost of basic services skyrockets because the costs of dealing with insurance companies and their red tape is now baked in. So too with mandatory car insurance. If we know the insurance companies are making a profit, and they're covering everything, we still pay, we just pay a lot more. If I were to hit someone, it would be cheaper for me to take cash from my pocket and pay for everything than report it to the insurance company and deal with the rate hike, which wouldn't go away after they'd extracted all the money for the repairs.

[nobspeople]

Please point to what I missed and I'd be happy to retract my statement.

So here's how it works now: You get hit, the party responsible doesn't pay, and your insurance doesn't either. Maybe you have money for a good lawyer to take your insurance company to task, but maybe you don't. Meanwhile you have to pay your insurance company just to drive your car and the uninsured person turns out his pockets, says oh well, and continues to do whatever he wants with no punishment. If they take away his license, he'll just drive without one. He didn't care that he was breaking one law before, so breaking two now is no biggie.

My suggestion is that the government acts as an insurance company and extracts the money to pay for damaged vehicles from those responsible. They can either make sure everyone pays with draconian measures like selling their organs if they refuse to work, or they can at least punish people with jail time who don't pay, which would at least be a deterrent. There doesn't seem to be any deterrent now.

Countries with government health care have better health care than free-market countries with mandatory insurance because a large part of the resources of an insurance company are spent lawyering out of fitting the bills. The cost of basic services skyrockets because the costs of dealing with insurance companies and their red tape is now baked in. So too with mandatory car insurance. If we know the insurance companies are making a profit, and they're covering everything, we still pay, we just pay a lot more. If I were to hit someone, it would be cheaper for me to take cash from my pocket and pay for everything than report it to the insurance company and deal with the rate hike, which wouldn't go away after they'd extracted all the money for the repairs.

Thanks for the clarification. I've used insurance multiple times (only once my fault). I have had positive, easy experiences (knock on wood), though I know that's not the case for everyone.