Removing Florida's No-Fault Insurance laws

[kdmorris]

So, we've been seeing these commercials lately that talk about lowering our auto insurance costs by doing away with "No-Fault" insurance and converting it to "those at fault pay for medical expenses". I've read through their site:

http://www.lowerinsurancecosts.org/

Truthfully, it sounds like a great idea, but I'm trying to figure out the down side of this. I'm sure there is one (or more) but I can't think of it right now. What do you all think about it? Is this something that will really help? Or is is just another way to look like they are doing something when it will really just to help corporations?

[cdsilv]

1. It will only help the companies ....

... from my understanding and experience w/no fault - both insurance companies pay for the other person's damages and then chase each other depending upon who is determined to be 'at fault'. In the at-fault scenario, only the injured party gets covered.

I think it is better to have all damages covered and let the insurers battle it out, rather than having the insurance consumers battle it out over who is at fault.

[kdmorris]

2. That was my concern, too.

In addition to what you've said, who's going to pay for injuries if the person at fault is not insured at all? Well, it doesn't look like they have much support for this yet. Maybe I'll just keep an eye on it and see how it all plays out. After all, there's not much use in gearing up to fight something that isn't really a threat.

[flyingdoc57]

3. We must save no-fault insurance

Allowing no-fault insurance to sunset will be the biggest
mistake floridians have made in decades. In general, what's
good for insurance companies is bad for the public. In
particular, allowing no-fault to vanish will result in huge
increases in bodily injury premiums, health insurance
premiums, and taxes (to cover the uninsured's services at
hospital emergency rooms). How deceitful it is that the
insurance companies only point to the benefit, a small
(short-lived) reduction in auto insurance premiums. While the
no-fault system has, indeed, been frought with fraud, this is
only because the insurance industry has purposely avoided
utilizing the cost containment measures available to it under
the current no-fault law. The industry has largely avoided
such action specifically because it has been on a campaign to
show the legislature and department of insurance how costly
no-fault has been to it. Make no mistake. In the words of
senator Posey, we will rue the day we let no-fault sunset. We
must all lobby our legislatures to take the issue up in the
June legislative session, to re-enact no-fault.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

4. Hi flyingdoc57! Welcome to Democratic Underground!

:hi:

[Samurai_Writer]

5. I think it's a good idea, actually

I had a major car accident in Florida, which is a no-fault state, in 2005. I am STILL paying medical bills, my credit is ruined, and I incurred all kinds of expenses because of it being 'no fault'... even though the guy plowed into me from behind and totaled my car. The guy was driving a company pickup truck, and was fully insured. But his insurance company or the company he worked for did not have to pay anything towards the medical bills and other bills they caused.

Compare this to the major car accident I had in Texas in 1990. I did not have to pay ONE DIME of medical bills, car repairs, etc. No deductibles. NADA. And the guy was responsible for FUTURE medical bills as well. Again, the driver plowed into me from behind and totaled my car. Oh, did I mention this driver was from MEXICO and had an umbrella insurance? They STILL PAID, and it did not take any time at all. No fighting between insurance companies.

Until you are in a serious accident, you might think 'no fault' is a good idea... until you have to pay the car and medical deductibles, PLUS 20% of any medical bills left over. Plus any other accrued expenses. Plus trying to get reimbursed for loss of income.

Whoever is at fault for the accident should be the one to pay.

[sidwill]

6. Unfortunately that only works if the other guy is carrying coverage

A side effect of PIP sunsetting is that until another law is passed covering it Florida drivers won't be compelled to carry any coverage at all.

Even if they do carry the current BI (bodily injury ) minimum is 10K , the same as PIP. So if your scenario had played out in Fl. post sunset the max you could recover would be 10K unless the driver had more coverage and then you would have to wait until the litigation was over to recover.

To add to this problem, it's estimated that 20% of Floridians have no health insurance, the savings of 16 to 20 dollars a month you would save on PIP would be more than eaten up in increased Health Insurance premiums as you pay more to cover those uninsured drivers.

PIP ain't perfect, but lets call this sunset what it really is "The State Farm increased profits Bill".