If you are at fault, your policy will pay up to the limit of liability for which you are covered.
Doesn't matter if it was on a freeway, a surface street, or in a parking garage.
The only difference a state may make is a requirement for a higher liability limit than you actually have. In that case, your policy will improve to meet that higher required limit.
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 07:02 am Post Subject:
There's nothing to worry since the insurance will cover for everything. If you don't have one then you're in a lot of trouble.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 02:11 pm Post Subject:
the insurance will cover for everything
How can you make that statement? If damage to other property is $10,000, but at fault party has only $5000 property damage liability (CA minimum), it will not be covered 100%. The difference comes out of the at-fault party's pocket.
Hardly the definition of covering "everything" with insurance.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 03:18 pm Post Subject:
Just to clarify, typically when someone says the term “full coverage” what they are referring to is in addition to liability insurance, coverage has been purchased to cover the cost of repairs to the vehicle the policyholder owns.
Liability insurance provides cover to the other person in the event you are in an accident and you are found to be at fault, therefore are “liable” to the other party for their damages.
Therefore, if you are in an accident and you are found at fault, it doesn’t matter whether or not the other party has “full coverage” or not, your insurance company will pay the other party for the damages you caused.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 03:22 pm Post Subject:
I agree with Shane Hudson’s post but did want to point out, some states have enacted what is referred to as a “No Pay, No Play” law. Essentially what this law means is if the person that was hit was not carrying the insurance they are required by law to carry, the person at fault can be exonerated of the damages (meaning they don’t have to pay for them). The philosophy behind this law is, had the uninsured motorist caused damages to someone, the someone would be out of luck and left to pay for damages they didn’t cause. Therefore, why should the uninsured driver be compensated when someone else did comply with the law.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 04:26 pm Post Subject:
“No Pay, No Play” law. Essentially what this law means is if the person that was hit was not carrying the insurance they are required by law to carry, the person at fault can be exonerated of the damages (meaning they don’t have to pay for them).
I'm not sure you have this quite right. What you refer to as "No Pay, No Play" normally does not extend to actual property damage and medical expense liabilities, but to other tort liabilities, such as "pain and suffering." An uninsured person who is not at fault for a collision is still entitled to have his/her vehicle repaired and their medical bills paid, but cannot sue for other personal injury losses because they lack their own insurance.
At least that's how it works in California.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 11:44 pm Post Subject:
Essentially what this law means is if the person that was hit was not carrying the insurance they are required by law to carry, the person at fault can be exonerated of the damages (meaning they don’t have to pay for them).
No Greg, this isn't correct, atleast not in any of the no pay no play laws I've read in the US. The 'uninsured' party that is NOT at fault, is barred from 'non-economic' losses...meaning they can still collect on their vehicle damage and actual (economic) losses, such as doc bills, loss of wage etc...just no pain and suffering (non-economic) etc, as max posted. Most also bar the uninsured from bringing suit for these non-economic losses.
Therefore, why should the uninsured driver be compensated when someone else did comply with the law.
I'd have to read that law Greg, negligence is negligence, whether or not a person is insured..The negligent person is responsible/liable for the damages they caused. They don't get off 'scott free' because they had the good luck of rearending an uninsured party.
Please post the states who's nopay noplay law says the uninsured innocent party is barred from economic losses.
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 06:17 am Post Subject:
If you are at fault, your policy will pay up to the limit of liability for which you are covered.
Doesn't matter if it was on a freeway, a surface street, or in a parking garage.
The only difference a state may make is a requirement for a higher liability limit than you actually have. In that case, your policy will improve to meet that higher required limit.
Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 07:02 am Post Subject:
There's nothing to worry since the insurance will cover for everything. If you don't have one then you're in a lot of trouble.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 02:11 pm Post Subject:
the insurance will cover for everything
How can you make that statement? If damage to other property is $10,000, but at fault party has only $5000 property damage liability (CA minimum), it will not be covered 100%. The difference comes out of the at-fault party's pocket.
Hardly the definition of covering "everything" with insurance.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 03:18 pm Post Subject:
Just to clarify, typically when someone says the term “full coverage” what they are referring to is in addition to liability insurance, coverage has been purchased to cover the cost of repairs to the vehicle the policyholder owns.
Liability insurance provides cover to the other person in the event you are in an accident and you are found to be at fault, therefore are “liable” to the other party for their damages.
Therefore, if you are in an accident and you are found at fault, it doesn’t matter whether or not the other party has “full coverage” or not, your insurance company will pay the other party for the damages you caused.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 03:22 pm Post Subject:
I agree with Shane Hudson’s post but did want to point out, some states have enacted what is referred to as a “No Pay, No Play” law. Essentially what this law means is if the person that was hit was not carrying the insurance they are required by law to carry, the person at fault can be exonerated of the damages (meaning they don’t have to pay for them). The philosophy behind this law is, had the uninsured motorist caused damages to someone, the someone would be out of luck and left to pay for damages they didn’t cause. Therefore, why should the uninsured driver be compensated when someone else did comply with the law.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 04:26 pm Post Subject:
“No Pay, No Play” law. Essentially what this law means is if the person that was hit was not carrying the insurance they are required by law to carry, the person at fault can be exonerated of the damages (meaning they don’t have to pay for them).
I'm not sure you have this quite right. What you refer to as "No Pay, No Play" normally does not extend to actual property damage and medical expense liabilities, but to other tort liabilities, such as "pain and suffering." An uninsured person who is not at fault for a collision is still entitled to have his/her vehicle repaired and their medical bills paid, but cannot sue for other personal injury losses because they lack their own insurance.
At least that's how it works in California.
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 11:44 pm Post Subject:
Essentially what this law means is if the person that was hit was not carrying the insurance they are required by law to carry, the person at fault can be exonerated of the damages (meaning they don’t have to pay for them).
No Greg, this isn't correct, atleast not in any of the no pay no play laws I've read in the US. The 'uninsured' party that is NOT at fault, is barred from 'non-economic' losses...meaning they can still collect on their vehicle damage and actual (economic) losses, such as doc bills, loss of wage etc...just no pain and suffering (non-economic) etc, as max posted. Most also bar the uninsured from bringing suit for these non-economic losses.Therefore, why should the uninsured driver be compensated when someone else did comply with the law.
I'd have to read that law Greg, negligence is negligence, whether or not a person is insured..The negligent person is responsible/liable for the damages they caused. They don't get off 'scott free' because they had the good luck of rearending an uninsured party.
Please post the states who's nopay noplay law says the uninsured innocent party is barred from economic losses.
Add your comment