subject: Arguments About the No Fault Insurance Proposal [print this page] Arguments About the No Fault Insurance Proposal
Though no fault insurance plans are already imposed in state legislatures which are from California to Rhode Island, a lawyer's lobby which happens to be well established is opposing the idea. The reason why lawyer's methods are different depending on what state is that most no fault proposals either delete or limit people from recovering from pain or injuries which really don't have certain compensation, according to the American Trial Lawyers Association. The ones who are affected by these limitations are those victims who seriously try to settle claims without the help of the court and those who file a case to redeem damages. A certain instance took place in Illinois wherein the trial lawyers' group brought out $100,000 which just eventually resulted to a very unsuccessful effort.
After declaring the no fault proposal as a law, a suit was immediately filed by the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. The State Supreme Court didn't approve of the law recently because it seemed to discriminate other groups of accident victims. In Arkansas and California, there is this group of lawyers who said that pending no fault bills restrict persons from bring their problems to the courts. A pending bill was attacked by the state Trial Lawyers Association in New York wherein they said that this bill does not allow civil rights such as to sue and also it prevents lawsuits from recovering damages for injuries.
However, counter offensive of the trial lawyers is just beginning. 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. Its own no fault provision is what the trial lawyers' bill has. Earnings from the national gasoline tax will be used in a productive way by the new Federal government corporation for it will serve as compensation for the auto accident victims. These victims would still receive a certain amount even if they were guilty or even if they do not have an insurance policy.
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. The general manager of the Trial Lawyers Association and professor of the Boston University Law School mentioned that these people who are proven guilty are no longer bothered by the no fault idea because they simple want to retained the wrong legal system. He says the trial lawyers believe their proposed federal corporation would be able to pay 90 per cent of all personal injury auto claims in full out of gasoline tax revenues.
Definitely, rates would go down for injury liability insurance because it has been subsidized by the government. There is a possibility that with the given subsidy by the government, most states would then require this. If that happens, the government would then have to spend over $3,000 or more per person. It is intended to base the immediate payments on whatever level would cover in full about 90 per cent of all personal injury claims, including hospitalization, medical care and loss of income. 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.
The Trial Lawyer's bill provides a competition for private insurance companies because what it basically does is to give the government a right to sell policies. With this, the Government Company would then be allowed to sell personal injury liability insurance. But there would be no change in the way motorists pay for such coverage.
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
