Calif. Consumer Advocate Rosenfield Urges Mass. to Repeal No-Fault, Make Other Auto Changes

March 29, 2005

  • March 29, 2005 at 11:22 am
    joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    you clown. we already have Bernie Jr. wandering around with his own consumer group thing going on. so, who needs you in Beantown anyway. if anyone has to return money to the drivers in Mass, it would be the State, since they set the rates.

    It’s time for free competition… send the carpetbagger from California back where he belongs.

  • March 30, 2005 at 12:17 pm
    Winston says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Fact: Insurance rates, especially auto insurance rates, is out of control.

    According to the stats quoted in the article hereto, MA would had saved approx. $50 if no-fault was done away.

    Call me crazy but I doubt that anyone is crying afoul over their own respective policy due to 50 bucks.

    I love to read articles wherein the insurance industry point the finger at fraud and litigation as the prime reason for insurance rates insofar as the reason and the statistics commonly mentioned never justify the actual rates.

    WHEN WILL CONSUMERS REALIZE THAT THIS IS PROPAGANDA. THIS IS SIMPLY A JUSTIFICATION FOR RAISING INSURANCE RATES!

    Let us not forget that it was J. Greenberg who delighted over having the opportunity to raise rates after hurricane Andrew.

    Fact: Rates are high because insurance carrier are in the business of turning huge profit and making money.

    What good is competition in the insurance industry if the said is not sufficiently regulated and monitored by the appropriate governmental agencies.

    Let us say that the costs associated with writing a particular risk fell, do you really believe the insurance industry would adequately and fairly pass the savings on to the consumers–I say not. What the would probably do is save each customer about 20 bucks and report the entire amount saved by all of the customers to reflect a distorted view.

    The trade off is not worth the few bucks that you might be possibly saving.

  • March 30, 2005 at 1:43 am
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In addition to increasing Health Insurance rates, the repeal of No-Fault will leave the medically uninsured, under-insured, and can’t afford the co-pay insureds worse off. There is no savings here. Just a transfer of cost from one place to the other. The $50 saved in overall auto insurance premiums will be spent ten times over by the people. We can’t seem to get univeral health care, but at least let us keep our $8k coverage for auto accidents. I’ll pay the $50 for the peace of mind for myself and everyone else out there. And remember, “fault” is not so clear cut. In fault states, it’s your fault if you skid on ice, it’s your fault if your car suffers a mechanical issue, it’s your fault if you hit a branch in the road…..

  • March 30, 2005 at 6:11 am
    matadco says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Winston: Spoken like a true plantiff lawyer. Since when is profit a bad? Would you work if you did not earn? Of course not. Insurance is an industry attempting to earn profit for stock holders just like anyother company. They sell a product hoping to earn a profit from their product. Why people figure insurance companies are just like government, a deep well that never runs dry I’ll never know. Return to the fault system with comparative negiligence as a complete defense and watch rates drop.

  • March 31, 2005 at 12:07 pm
    Stacey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The real truth about insurance is that in some states the state does not require the consumer to have adequate coverage and one can be left unprotected. I live in FL, a no-fault state, but I do not believe that Floridians truly understand what that means. In FL, one is only required to have no fault coverage and property damage coverage and this is what people call their “full coverage.” Let’s be serious here, if you had full coverage you would never need to wonder whether the “at-fault” had coverage because you have made sure you are covered completely (Uninsured Motorist coverage is what I am speaking about here). The fact remains that if your state does not require you to have liability coverage by law then they are not looking out for your best interests. Period.

    Insurance companies have premiums for every little thing you could possibly need on your policy. They continually raise their rates as approved by the States and then “kickback” some of it to you each year when their company has a year of low claims. This is a trick of the insurance company.

    Still, I would have to agree with Winston, people are not overly concerned about $50 on their premium as much as they are about being protected from lawsuits and serious injury to themselves. Consumers in no fault states should be pushing their local legislators to increase required coverage, not change the system entirely so they can save a couple bucks.

  • March 31, 2005 at 12:21 pm
    Stacey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Had to respond to this. There is a huge misunderstanding, overall, of what No-fault actually means. In a “fault” state, as you put it, your state insurance law merely requires you to have liability coverage. This coverage protects YOU if you are at fault in a car crash. In a no-fault state you are required by law to have what is called Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage. This type of coverage pays your bills if you are injured in a crash while in your vehicle or in someone else’s vehicle even. It puts the responsibility back on the injured party to take care of their own injuries and completely absolves the at-fault of any blame (unless they happen to have liability coverage).

    PIP is a good thing. It covers your medical bills, lost wages and in some states reimburses you for mileage and prescription expenses PLUS it does not affect your premium. It is like bonus coverage. Every state has PIP or Med Pay coverage. In some states you have to waive PIP if you dont want it, in others (no fault states)it is required by law.

    The fact still remains that if you live in a no fault state you still need liability coverage!

    In regard to what is one’s fault. Skidding on the ice is circumstantial, it could be your fault or it couldn’t. If a branch falls in the roadway and you are not allowed to pursue a comprehensive claim (rather than a collision claim)which carries a lower deductible and is not listed as an at fault incident you need to switch insurance companies (a branch falling into the roadway is somewhat considered an act of god and not the fault of the driver/owner). If you do not keep up maintenance on your vehicle and something occurs that could be your fault yes.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*