subject: Competition Between The Government And Private Insurance Companies [print this page] The established idea about no fault insurance plans is not approved by the lawyers? lobby which happens to be a well financed guild. The no fault proposals according to the American Trial Lawyers Association prohibit people from recovering from the injuries that they acquired which really do not have a certain monetary value.
According to him, same limitations apply to both victims who settle claims not involving the court and victims who file a suit to recover damages. In fact, it was in Illinois wherein an amount of $100,000 was spent by the trial lawyers which resulted to an unsuccessful lobbying effort to kill the bill.
The no fault proposal was then proclaimed as a law wherein afterwards, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association filed a suit. The law has been recently declared unlawful by the State Supreme Court because it doesn't include the welfare of some groups of accident victims.
As what the group of lawyers in Arkansas and California disputed that no fault bills refrain persons from bringing their problems in court. In New York the state Trial Lawyers Association has attacked a pending bill, saying it denies the civil rights to sue and precludes lawsuits to recover damages for pain and suffering.
But the big counter offensive of the trial lawyers is just starting. They basically are preparing to introduce in Congress an extreme version of 'no fault' which supporters are not in favor of, this is the preservation of the tort damage which is what the Federal Automobile Insurance Reform Act is about.
The trial lawyers' bill has its own no fault provision. All auto accident victims would be compensated at once up to certain limits by a new Federal government corporation financed out of the national gasoline tax. Who was at fault or who is not, who was insured or who is not, either way, victims will still be paid.
What the court would do is that it would deduct the amount that the guilty driver received from the government, although the right to sue and collect from the guilty driver would remain. These guilty drivers are no longer threatened by the no fault idea, they just want to retain the wrong legal system and they see the no fault as a justifiable social welfare principle and not as an insurance gimmick said the general manager of the Trial Lawyers Association and professor of the Boston University Law School. According to him, trial lawyers do believe that the proposed federal corporation has the ability to shoulder over 90 percent of all personal injury claims.
It is accepted that rates for injury liability insurance would definitely decrease because the government paid deductibles and that such facts have been cited. What most states would do now is to probably require such coverage. Then if this mandate is approved, spending of the government per person would raise up to $3,000.
The amount to be given to the victims would be cover in full about 90 percent of all personal injury claims which already covers hospital costs, medical care and even income loss. However, certain conditions has to be followed in providing victims with immediate payments and with this, people who drive under the influence of alcohol and drugs, driving without license and driving if that person still has an offense against the law would not receive anything at all.
What the Trial Lawyers' bill does is that it pushes the government to sell such insurance, but this bill does not meddle with the current collision, property damage liability and auto fire and theft insurance system. The Government Company would be permitted to sell personal injury liability insurance in competition with private companies. Now, motorists take care of such coverage, but in the future, they would still have to pay for their coverage.
by: John Chambers
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
