drsteve wrote:
All this drama and nonsense is the reason some states have gone to a no fault insurance system. Here in Michigan, your carrier makes you whole, the other guy's carrier takes care of him. No arguments about who is at fault, no costly and time consuming attorneys, no bickering between competing insurers trying to offload the costs on each other. Fault can come into play regarding whose rates may get raised in the aftermath of a crash, but that's it. Oh, if the other guy is at fault, his carrier pays your deductible, but that's the extent. It's much more straightforward.
Except this isn't really true for most states and no fault means a lot of different things and varying levels of what it does.
As an example, no fault in Florida means that insurers are obligated to pay the first 10k of first party medical. 80% of medical, 60% of lost wages and a small death benefit if that should happen (very small).
After this amount, medical is fully paid by the normal process. Medical payments coverage, other companies BI and or your own uninsured motorist (Many don't have a clue how that works either)
Quite frankly no fault has caused a huge surge in small time PiP claims in the state and it has been calculated that removing it would save significant amounts of money. These claims are mandated to be paid so it is trivial and easy to defraud the system.
In most states that I'm aware of, no fault handles Bodily Injury and has NOTHING to do with property damage claims. Especially property damage to vehicles.
Now in Michigan, it does. That isn't the case in every no fault state. However the end result is this, if she goes through the other guys insurance it is exactly the same thing as Michigan. He causes damage to her car, his policy pays. In her state, and most others, she also has the option to go through her own carrier. Options are nice but there can be consequences to them as there are with any system.
