Skip to footer

A crash course in auto accident liability

The pros and cons of no-fault insurance: What's best for you?

|
Elaine Thompson/AP/File
Traffic moves across Lake Washington in Medina, Wash. Drivers nationwide continue to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of no-fault insurance.

Accidents have been inevitable ever since the invention of automobiles. Also inevitable are the never-ending legal disputes over who is responsible for damages.

Two different approaches have emerged to deal with auto accidents: no-fault insurance and liability litigation. Drivers who want to register a vehicle should be required to subscribe to a minimum standard of no-fault insurance, but thus far, states have been reluctant to fully enact such a mandate.

Nevada and Pennsylvania adopted the scheme but repealed it later. California considered the option for several years but never adopted it. Both Nevada and California follow financial responsibility law, which ensures the operators have the means to pay for the damages that they may cause others, thus keeping uninsured drivers off the roads.

No-fault insurance, the more recent approach, ensures that each party is compensated for damages. Under a no-fault system, involved parties go through their own insurance companies to pay for the damages. In other words, drivers share in the cost of accidents.

The no-fault system has been successful in allowing faster payment of damages and in ensuring equal treatment. The system has some advantages and disadvantages, however, and a combination of fault and no-fault may offer the most equitable system.

Advantages of no-fault insurance:

  • It ensures a fast payment of benefits. Accident victims also get a more equal payment rather than uneven payment for different cases.
  • It significantly decreases the number of court cases as well as the legal hassles associated with them.
  • It reduces premiums for car insurance because money is not spent on legal costs.

Disadvantages of no-fault insurance:

  • It significantly restricts, or even eliminates, the ability to sue, even in cases where one party is clearly at fault.
  • It may lead to an increase in careless driving, since the affected parties both get the same compensation. An insurance system should never increase the probability of accidents.
  • It increases the number of persons receiving benefits, which offsets the benefits obtained by saving legal costs.

In the fault-based liability litigation system, jury trials are held and the party at fault is legally determined. This can result in long, drawn-out court battles, with the affected parties waiting a long time for financial aid. The claim may go on the person’s record, even if the person is not at fault, and can result in an increase in the premium. This insurance plan does not allow the people involved to sue, nor does it cover damages for pain and suffering.

The best outcome is a mixture of the two systems. For example, when damages exceed a certain limit, it is possible for the party not at fault to sue those who are at fault, which makes it a combination of liability litigation and no-fault insurance.

Auto accidents have been with us since the first autos. So far the perfect, accident-free car has not been invented. Neither, it seems, has the perfect insurance system.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to A crash course in auto accident liability
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2015/0301/A-crash-course-in-auto-accident-liability
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe