The Negative Side Of The No Fault Scheme

It is just so sad that the well organized and well financed lawyer's lobby does not consent the idea that no fault insurance plans are established in California to Rhode Island. Although the lawyer's methods are different depending on which state, according to a spokesman for the American Trial Lawyers Association, the reason why there is a disagreement is because most no fault proposals either eliminate or limit people's rights to recover from the injury that really doesn't have a fixed monetary value. He also mentioned that affected by these limitations are the victims who deal with the problem out of court and the victims who file a case to redeem damages. A total of around $100,000 was spent by the trial lawyers' group in Illinois to have the bill killed, but this was unsuccessful.

But after the no fault proposal was signed into law, the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association filed a suit. The State Supreme Court didn't approve of the law recently because it seemed to discriminate other groups of accident victims. Pending no fault bills take away the rights of the persons to bring the case to the courts, according to the lawyer's group in Arkansas and California. The Trial Lawyers Association in New York clearly do not agree with the pending bill that prevents lawsuits from recovering damages and that it does not allow people to sue.

However, counter offensive of the trial lawyers is just beginning. What they plan to do is to introduce in Congress a Federal Automobile Insurance Reform Act that would contain the tort damage lawsuit right, which in other words is the extreme version of 'no fault' that supporters want to get rid of. The trial lawyers' bill has its own no fault provision. A new Federal government corporation would be compensating all auto accident victims at once, wherein the amount to be given comes from the national gasoline tax. They would be paid regardless of whether they were at fault or whether or not the motorist who was at fault was insured.

The guilty driver and his insurance company will be at fault in this case, and they will be sued plus the amount that they have received from the government would then be deducted by the court. According to the general manager of the Trial Lawyers Association and professor of the Boston University Law School, these guilty drivers are no longer scared of the no fault idea, they just want to tort the legal system and they see the no fault as a reasonable social welfare principle instead of an insurance gimmick. Trial lawyers very much think that around 90 percent of all personal injury auto claims would be able to shoulder by the federal corporation.

Since such facts have been stated and that the government already shouldered deductibles, don't be surprised if rates for injury liability insurance would go down. With this, there is a possibility for most states to make this coverage a requirement. An amount of $3,000 has to be shouldered by the government per person. The immediate payments that victims would benefit from would cover about 90 percent of all personal injury claims including hospital expenses and medical care, as well as income loss. Driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, driving without license and driving while engaged in serious violation of the law are those people who wouldn't be receiving any immediate payments.

The Trial Lawyer's bill does not have anything to do with the present collision, property damage liability and auto fire and theft insurance system, instead what it does is to push the government to sell insurance to compete with private companies. Now, personal injury liability insurance will not only be sold by the private companies but it will also be available with the Government Company. Still, motorists are required to pay for such coverage.