No-Fault Insurance In Other States: Fill & Download for Free

Do you mean no-fault car insurance?In a no-fault jurisdiction in the US, it doesn’t matter who caused a car crash, your own insurance will cover the cost of your medical bills, lost wages, and so on. It will also cover the cost of your passenger’s injuries and lost wages. If the driver or passenger dies, the insurance covers funeral expenses.In a pure no-fault state, you cannot sue for pain and suffering. The amount of coverage for the medical bills will vary by state or by how much you pay for your policy. This coverage of medical bills is sometimes called personal injury protection or PIP. What Is No-Fault Insurance?In the old days and in fault states, the victim often had to file suit and prove liability before they could get their medical bills paid. The specifics of the laws and how they work will vary.Some states, like Pennsylvania, are a mixed fault and no-fault system. This means your insurance will cover your medical bills regardless of who caused the accident (up to the amount you pay for coverage of medical bills) but you can sue for your injuries and pain and suffering if the other person was responsible for the crash.These states tend to have two different types of policies. In one type, you can only sue for your injuries if they are severe. This form of insurance tends to be much cheaper. In Pennsylvania, we call this limited tort. In the other type, you can sue regardless of how serious your injuries were. This is called full tort. Most car accidents do not actually have serious injuries, so insurance companies, on the whole, save a lot of money when people choose limited tort, even though the insurance is much cheaper. Full tort and limited tort automobile insurance - WikipediaThe term no-fault also is used in divorce. In (I believe) every jurisdiction in the US, there is no-fault divorce. In the old days, the plaintiff in a divorce would have to allege an actionable reason for a divorce. Adultery, abuse, abandonment, and so on. The plaintiff had to prove their case in order to obtain a divorce. In a no-fault divorce, it doesn’t matter whether someone did something wrong. It is enough to allege that the marriage just has broken down. There is no need to prove a reason for the divorce.

Think about this for a minute.Generally, the minimum legal insurance coverage that is required by law is liability insurance. In other words, if you hurt other people your insurance covers their injuries and property damage.Yeah, some states require the insurance to be no fault to simplify the whole question of “who made the mistake” issue so people can be patched up faster.Full coverage is generally a requirement of the lending institution to cover their investment, in case one of your “Junior Einstein’s” wrap the car around a tree before it’s paid off.Mandatory health insurance covers yourself. Your are forced to buy a product that you may not want.In this case I’m not making a value judgement, but suffice to say its comparing apples to oranges.Look, a Dilbert with the words “car insurance” in it!Edit: Do not overthink my answer. It was not discussing the “value” of universal health insurance or taking a position of if we should or should not have it.I was simply trying to address the question of “why one but not the other”I went ahead and disabled additional comments as I don't have time to answer everyone's questions, as I just moved along to spread joy elsewhere.

Because my parents did everything “right,” and the system failed us anyway. Based on one little issue that nobody could control: in 1959, before the mumps vaccine was developed, my father-to-be came down with it and developed a known, though unusual complication. It turned into Type I Diabetes.Fast forward to meeting my mother and deciding to start a family. Because he was likely not to live past his sixties and because they were in a situation where they could afford it, they started their family in their twenties on the idea that, by the time he died, we’d have already grown to adults. They started a college fund when I was born. They were saving. They’d bought a house. Everything conservatives say you should do to be “responsible” was happening.And then Dad started going downhill not in his fifties, but in his thirties.After the savings were gone, the house went first, when he had to move to keep his job and health insurance. Then the college fund vanished after he hit the lifetime limit on his health insurance (which was, by the way, the Federal Employees’ Health Plan). Little by little, my family was driven into poverty by his medical bills. When he died, he left behind seven figures in unpaid debt that my mother was forced to accept in order to receive the payout from his life insurance.Yet when I tell this story people STILL blame my family: why didn’t your mother work? (Day care cost more than she could earn.) Why didn’t he change jobs? (Pre-existing condition exclusions still existed, and he also wanted his family to have medical insurance even if he didn’t anymore.) Why didn’t he enroll in the Medicare ESRD program? (He wasn’t eligible.) Where was your extended family? (In other states, and beset with alcoholism — which is another reason my parents moved away.) And on and on.In the meantime, my family suffered horribly from being in poverty, and I encountered all the reasons that it becomes cyclical (lack of access to education, decent nutrition, etc.). The only reason I didn’t get trapped into the cycle was because I was first-generation. Even then, it was close.That’s why I’m a liberal. Because even when you do everything right, society still blames the victim, and nobody wants to accept that they are just one disaster away from being in trouble themselves, or that people can end up in trouble through no fault — or control — of their own. Nor do they want to accept that it’s next to impossible to get back up once you’re pushed down far enough.Our system is broken, and anyone who thinks otherwise or that they’re “safe” is living in a fantasy world.