msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (08/10/85)
> > What if you or I were hit by an uninsured driver? > > We could tally huge medical bills with no means > > to pay for them. I think you can never confiscate > > someone's automobile liability insurance because > > others will often suffer the most. > > Which brings up an important point. This can happen to you > NOW! My attorney has handled many cases where > innocent people were severely injured by uninsured drivers > and were unable to collect. ... Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?), insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured driver who runs into you. In other words, suppose I collide with J, and J is at fault, and I suffer serious injuries; then J's insurance might have to pay me, say, $250,000. But if J is uninsured, J merely owes me that money, and since he can only pay $5,000, I'm out $245,000 (minus what my particular government chips in), and J declares bankruptcy or something. Under my proposal, my own insurance, although primarily for the purpose of paying J if I had been at fault, would pay me the $250,000 in this case. J gets the same treatment as before, because he still owes $250,000 -- only now he owes it to my insurer, not me. So there my proposal does not confer any benefit to J, but does to me -- at a cost of a slightly higher premium. I say slightly higher because most drivers *are* insured, so the risk of this is small. I favor mandatory liability insurance for drivers, but this seems to be a workable alternative. I've never heard of such policies actually existing anywhere. Do they? Mark Brader
jcjeff@ihlpg.UUCP (Richard Jeffreys) (08/13/85)
> > > What if you or I were hit by an uninsured driver? > > > We could tally huge medical bills with no means > > > to pay for them. I think you can never confiscate > > > someone's automobile liability insurance because > > > others will often suffer the most. > > > > Which brings up an important point. This can happen to you > > NOW! My attorney has handled many cases where > > innocent people were severely injured by uninsured drivers > > and were unable to collect. ... > > Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed > not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?), > insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only > against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured > driver who runs into you. Explaination of a hypothetical case followed > I favor mandatory liability insurance for drivers, but this seems to > be a workable alternative. I've never heard of such policies actually > existing anywhere. Do they? > Mark Brader In the UK we have a law which states that drivers must have a minimum of "Third Party" insurance. If an accident happened the insurance company would pay all costs to a third party who had been involved in the accident. (assuming that the driver, who was the third party, was in no way to blame) The guy who had "Third Party" insurance would not be able to claim for medical costs for himself, or for the damage sustained to his car. We also have a coupe of other categories of insurance, "Third Party, Fire and Theft", which is as stated above, but having the advantage of coverage for, as its name suggests, fire and theft of the car. The third category would be "Fully Comprehensive", which as it's name also suggests, covers virtually everything from all medical costs to all injured parties to paying the cost of a new windshield which got cracked by a stone. If you do have an accident, and find that your insurance has lapsed, not only could you be in financial trouble because of law suits, but the police would also like to have a few words to you about driving without insurance. BTW. you know thoes little stickers you put on your license plates, well, in the UK we have something similar, but to obtain them (at the Post Office) you need to show them a vaild certificate of insurance, along with an MOT (Ministry Of Transport) certificate, which has been obtained after a qualified mechanic has looked at your car and deemed it safe to drive for a period of one year. (I believe a similar thing happens in some states). It is the need to show proof of vaild documents that helps make sure that the cars on the road are both mechanically sound and insured. -- [ It's not the end of the world....no it's not; If it's the end of the world, well so what ? - Marti Webb ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || From the keys of Richard Jeffreys ( British Citizen Overseas ) || || employed by North American Philips Corporation || || @ AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ || General disclaimer about anything and everything that I may have typed || ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jcjeff@ihlpg.UUCP (Richard Jeffreys) (08/13/85)
I guess I should have added in my last article <1074@ihlpg.UUCP> that we
also have a mandetory seat belt law for front seat passangers, and the
polititians are now talking about a mandetory law for rear seat passengers
as well.
I only hope it comes soon.
--
[ It's not the end of the world....no it's not;
If it's the end of the world, well so what ? - Marti Webb ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|| From the keys of Richard Jeffreys ( British Citizen Overseas ) ||
|| employed by North American Philips Corporation ||
|| @ AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois ||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|| General disclaimer about anything and everything that I may have typed ||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (08/13/85)
>From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) > >Under my proposal, my own insurance, although primarily for the >purpose of paying J if I had been at fault, would pay me the $250,000 >in this case. J gets the same treatment as before, because he still >owes $250,000 -- only now he owes it to my insurer, not me. So there >my proposal does not confer any benefit to J, but does to me -- at a >cost of a slightly higher premium. I say slightly higher because most >drivers *are* insured, so the risk of this is small. > >I favor mandatory liability insurance for drivers, but this seems to >be a workable alternative. I've never heard of such policies actually >existing anywhere. Do they? > >Mark Brader Yes My policy form INA has a section called "Uninsured Motorists". The common ammount is $30,000, but you can choose to waive it entirely and save $100 or so. My broker says the risk of being hit by an uninsured motorist is very low.
megjpm@mb2c.UUCP (John Macks) (08/14/85)
> > > What if you or I were hit by an uninsured driver? > > > We could tally huge medical bills with no means > > > to pay for them. I think you can never confiscate > > > someone's automobile liability insurance because > > > others will often suffer the most. > > > > Which brings up an important point. This can happen to you > > NOW! My attorney has handled many cases where > > innocent people were severely injured by uninsured drivers > > and were unable to collect. ... > > Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed > not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?), > insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only > against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured > driver who runs into you. > > In other words, suppose I collide with J, and J is at fault, > and I suffer serious injuries; then J's insurance might have to pay > me, say, $250,000. But if J is uninsured, J merely owes me > that money, and since he can only pay $5,000, I'm out $245,000 > (minus what my particular government chips in), and J declares > bankruptcy or something. > > Under my proposal, my own insurance, although primarily for the > purpose of paying J if I had been at fault, would pay me the $250,000 > in this case. J gets the same treatment as before, because he still > owes $250,000 -- only now he owes it to my insurer, not me. So there > my proposal does not confer any benefit to J, but does to me -- at a > cost of a slightly higher premium. I say slightly higher because most > drivers *are* insured, so the risk of this is small. > > I favor mandatory liability insurance for drivers, but this seems to > be a workable alternative. I've never heard of such policies actually > existing anywhere. Do they? > > Mark Brader In Michigan, all car owners are required by law to maintain liability coverage. In order to get your annual license plate tabs, you must provide proof of insurance. I believe auto insurance is mandatory in many other states. This does not eliminate the problem of uninsured motorists, since they can still obtain proof of insurance by paying the first installment on the policy at the time of license plate renewal, and then simply not pay the remaining insurance payments and thereby let the policy lapse. Thus, insurers still offer uninsured motorist coverage in Michigan, at a very modest additional premium.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/15/85)
In article <748@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: > >Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed >not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?), >insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only >against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured >driver who runs into you. > As a matter of fact, this is quite standard, even in states where liability insurance is required by law(such as California). I have had Uninsured Driver insurance since I first owned a car! The main problem with it is of course the deductible and the maximum coverage. It also adds a small amount to your premiums. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (08/16/85)
> > Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed > not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?), > insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only > against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured > driver who runs into you. In every state that I've lived, my ins co (Liberty Mututal) has _always_ had an option to deal with uninsured/underinsured drivers hitting me. It is worth the few extra $$s, as I was once rear-ended at a stop light by a pot head doing 65MPH. No insurance, totaled both cars, almost totaled me (I got a new face - the shoulder belt tore out of the doorpost.) She tried to sue me for her damages yet! The large sum that was payed out by my insurance to me more than made up the few $ the rider cost. If you don't have this rider, i strongly suggest you get it put on your policy **today**. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
larry@anasazi.UUCP (Larry Rodis) (08/16/85)
In article <748@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: >> > What if you or I were hit by an uninsured driver? >> >> Which brings up an important point. This can happen to you >> NOW! My attorney has handled many cases where >> innocent people were severely injured by uninsured drivers >> and were unable to collect. ... > >Under my proposal, my own insurance, although primarily for the >purpose of paying J if I had been at fault, would pay me the $250,000 >in this case. J gets the same treatment as before, because he still >owes $250,000 -- only now he owes it to my insurer, not me. So there >my proposal does not confer any benefit to J, but does to me -- at a >cost of a slightly higher premium. I say slightly higher because most >drivers *are* insured, so the risk of this is small. > >I favor mandatory liability insurance for drivers, but this seems to >be a workable alternative. I've never heard of such policies actually >existing anywhere. Do they? > >Mark Brader Arizona insurance requires that all drivers must be insured. Also all insurance policy's must carry unininsured motorist and underinsured motorists parts to the insurance policy. This way in the event someone from hits you without insurance or without enough insurance your own policy pays for your damages. I believe that states with mandatory insurance and no-fault policy's offer this type of protection automatically because of the no-fault clause. -- Larry Rodis UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|hao}!noao!terak!anasazi!larry ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!anasazi!larry PHONE: +1 (602)275-0302
kitten@hao.UUCP (08/17/85)
> >I favor mandatory liability insurance for drivers, but this seems to > >be a workable alternative. I've never heard of such policies actually > >existing anywhere. Do they? > > > >Mark Brader > > Yes My policy form INA has a section called "Uninsured Motorists". The common > ammount is $30,000, but you can choose to waive it entirely and save $100 or > so. My broker says the risk of being hit by an uninsured motorist is very > low. *** I've had Uninsured Motorist insurance for several years (in California). In Southern California, uninsureds abound. I've only been in two accidents, In both, the other driver was a young (20's) male NOT carrying his license and NOT insured. The second time the guy Claimed he had insurance...when I called the company the next day, they said he hadn't been with them for two years. If you are driving in ANY major metropolitan area, I strongly advise you to get this additional insurance. {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!kitten CSNET: kitten@NCAR ARPA: kitten%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/17/85)
> In article <748@lsuc.UUCP> msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: > > > >Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed > >not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?), > >insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only > >against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured > >driver who runs into you. > > > As a matter of fact, this is quite standard, even in states > where liability insurance is required by law(such as California). > I have had Uninsured Driver insurance since I first owned a car! > The main problem with it is of course the deductible and the maximum > coverage. It also adds a small amount to your premiums. > The point I was trying to make when I posted the article about uninsured motorist coverage, is that it is possible (in some jurisdictions, at least) to get very substantial coverage for very low marginal cost over the basic uninsured motorist coverage, that would cover you in the unlikely event that you were seriously injured by someone who did not have adequate coverage. It is not hard to imagine cases where your actual damages (including medical, disability, etc.) could these days run into six digits. As I pointed out, my attorney has seen a number of cases where people were in this boat and had no recourse because the person who caused the accident wasn't adequately covered and didn't have assets to cover any judgement. If you have a couple of hundred thousand in medical bills and disability (inability to continue to work for a living) this is just the situation that insurance is intended for -- to cover the *devastating* losses that you can't afford to take. The marginal cost for *adequate* uninsured motorist coverage in Texas is really quite low. This is probably the case in many states. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
edg@micropro.UUCP (Ed Greenberg) (08/20/85)
In article <239@mb2c.UUCP>, megjpm@mb2c.UUCP (John Macks) writes: > > In Michigan, all car owners are required by law to maintain liability coverage. > In order to get your annual license plate tabs, you must provide proof of > insurance. I believe auto insurance is mandatory in many other states. This > does not eliminate the problem of uninsured motorists, since they can still > obtain proof of insurance by paying the first installment on the policy at > the time of license plate renewal, and then simply not pay the remaining > insurance payments and thereby let the policy lapse. Thus, insurers still > offer uninsured motorist coverage in Michigan, at a very modest additional > premium. In New York, the motorist is required to (a) submit proof of insurance to the DMV when registering the car and then (b) carry that proof in the vehicle and show it to the police on demand. Further, if the insurance co. cancels you for non payment, they notify DMV who (a) cancels your registration and (b) notifies you that you must surrender your plates. Even further, you cannot cancel your insurance voluntarily without sending the insurance company a copy of the receipt for your plates (or other rigamarole like insuring a new car with the same plates at the same time.) -compare this with California- where, (a) you must certify that you have insurance after you have an accident, and (b) you must give the policeman your policy number (from memory, an official form, the back of your registration, a banana skin, or wherever you have it.) By the way, both New York and California insurers offer protection against uninsured motorists and it's very inexpensive in both cases. Hearing the horror stories on the net, I come to appreciate the strictness of the New York law. -e -- UUCP: {hplabs,dual,ptsfa}!well!micropro!edg
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (09/10/85)
Massachusetts has a mandatory auto insurance law but, since people sometimes
break the law and there are people who drive in from other states, etc., I
can't recall every applying for auto insurance in Massachuetts where the
insurance company didn't offer a cheap uninusured motorist add-on.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deeallan@nmtvax.UUCP (09/12/85)
I think that an uninsured/underinsured motorist clause is a good thing to have with your insurance. A couple years ago, while I was sitting in the house studying and heard a loud crash. I went outside to find my car in the neighbor's yard and a car speeding away from the scene. The insurance that my dad bought for my car did not have uninsured motorist, so I was out a car (more or less). My current policy on my TR7 only costs me $2.00 extra a month for uninsured motorist. Allan F. Perry
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (09/16/85)
In article <757@nmtvax.UUCP> allan@nmtvax.UUCP (Allan F. Perry) writes: >I think that an uninsured/underinsured motorist clause is a good thing to >have with your insurance. A couple years ago, while I was sitting in the >house studying and heard a loud crash. I went outside to find my car in >the neighbor's yard and a car speeding away from the scene. The insurance >that my dad bought for my car did not have uninsured motorist, so I was >out a car (more or less). Yup. And I'll fill you in on a little secret. If you HAD had UUM coverage, you'd STILL have been out a car. I've had it on my policy for several years. In 1981, on I-35 near Waco a (very probable) doper driving a delapidated old red Ford pickup rear-ended my car (I was only doing about 50, attempting a delicate passing maneuver on a 70-foot semi-mobile highway obstruction, at the time) and subsequently blasted away into the distance, while I struggled to regain control of my car on the inner shoulder. I doubt that you can easily conceive of the number of times I have cursed myself for not making a more concerted effort to read the license number on that truck. You see, in order to collect under the UUM clause, you potentially have to prove that the offending motorist doesn't have adequate insurance. That's usually rather difficult when you can't even identify the person. Do you understand now why UUM coverage is so cheap? It is NOT hit-and run insurance. Dry ice will form spontaneously in Hell long before the average policyholder will be able to collect under it. -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/17/85)
> In article <757@nmtvax.UUCP> allan@nmtvax.UUCP (Allan F. Perry) writes: > >I think that an uninsured/underinsured motorist clause is a good thing to > >have with your insurance. A couple years ago, while I was sitting in the > >house studying and heard a loud crash. I went outside to find my car in > >the neighbor's yard and a car speeding away from the scene. The insurance > >that my dad bought for my car did not have uninsured motorist, so I was > >out a car (more or less). > > Yup. And I'll fill you in on a little secret. If you HAD had UUM > coverage, you'd STILL have been out a car. I've had it on my policy > for several years. In 1981, on I-35 near Waco a (very probable) doper > driving a delapidated old red Ford pickup rear-ended my car (I was > only doing about 50, attempting a delicate passing maneuver on a 70-foot > semi-mobile highway obstruction, at the time) and subsequently blasted > away into the distance, while I struggled to regain control of my car > on the inner shoulder. I doubt that you can easily conceive of the number > of times I have cursed myself for not making a more concerted effort > to read the license number on that truck. You see, in order to collect > under the UUM clause, you potentially have to prove that the offending > motorist doesn't have adequate insurance. That's usually rather difficult > when you can't even identify the person. > > Do you understand now why UUM coverage is so cheap? It is NOT hit-and run > insurance. Dry ice will form spontaneously in Hell long before the average > policyholder will be able to collect under it. I checked my policy. It clearly states that included is a vehicle "Which is a hit and run vehicle whose operator or owner cannot be identified..." It also states: "If we and you do not agree as to whether or not a vehicle is actually uninsured, the burden of proof as to that issue shall be on us." Perhaps the forms have changed since you had your experience. Or perhaps it varies from company to company. It's a good idea to read your policy over on occasion. -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
allan@nmtvax.UUCP (09/19/85)
Indeed. I checked the policy out before I paid the extra $24/year and it explicitly says that a HIT and RUN driver is an uninsured driver. So there! Allan F. Perry
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (09/23/85)
In article <734@utastro.UUCP> bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes: >> In article <757@nmtvax.UUCP> allan@nmtvax.UUCP (Allan F. Perry) writes: >> >I think that an uninsured/underinsured motorist clause is a good thing to >> >have with your insurance. A couple years ago, while I was sitting in the >> >house studying and heard a loud crash... >> >> Yup. And I'll fill you in on a little secret. If you HAD had UUM >> coverage, you'd STILL have been out a car. > >I checked my policy. It clearly states that included is a vehicle > "Which is a hit and run vehicle whose operator or > owner cannot be identified..." Okay, you got me. I knew at this point that something was probably wrong, leaning on the assumption that Jefferys and I both have legal Texas auto insurance policies. Funny thing; mine contains language much like the stuff in his. Has it changed? I actually found the policy that was in effect in '81 when my car got wrecked (there are some benefits to being a packrat) and it, oddly, says the same thing, though not in the same words. I bring this up not so much to make excuses for myself, however severly mauled I may have been, but because I think there's a useful lesson in it. Where did I get the idea that my policy didn't cover hit-and-run accidents when it clearly stated the contrary, you ask? Good question, but the answer is easy. Instead of digging out the policy and reading it, I called my insurance agency on the phone and asked. It's a big Independent^(circle-R) agency (= lots of people work there) and some of the agents are very good, but occasionally you will meet one who doesn't really know what's going on. The moral, if there is one, must be this: if you want to know what an insurance policy covers, read it yourself first. And of course, I apologize for spreading misinformation on the net. -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell