Didn’t really expect much from DrivingUk but honestly the amount of downvotes shocked me. God forbid people go out at night dressed normally without full on high vis.
Reddit Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/comments/1r8fkfo/comment/o65j18p/
Didn’t really expect much from DrivingUk but honestly the amount of downvotes shocked me. God forbid people go out at night dressed normally without full on high vis.
Reddit Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/drivingUK/comments/1r8fkfo/comment/o65j18p/
Yeah but if you are injured or killed in a warehouse the warehouse owner may be sued or held liable which hurts rich people. If you get killed on the street only the poor suffer.
/s
I thought one of the reasons you have vehicle insurance is precisely so that if you hit someone, they can sue you and you can’t just weasel out of it by declaring bankruptcy?
That’s only half of it. The other half is to cover your medical bills (because we live in capitalist hell) and cover (hopefully) the cost of repairs or replacement of the vehicle. It’s a great system in theory.
I live in Canada, so things get a lot less complicated around medical bills, specifically.
Where things get really dicey, money-wise is around if you can’t work due to injury.
I think the minimum personal liability you have to carry is a million, but it’s pretty common to have 2 million.
Even at that, IMO it’s still not really enough. If you mashed someone up so bad they can’t work anymore, even a full unadulterated 2 million isn’t going to square a lifetime of lost income.
I’m not coming out here to say Insurance is great. Just that if we’re going to talk about the issues. I just think we owe it to ourselves to understand it well enough to have clear critism based on reality. I was concerned that some of the previous posts weren’t communicating reality clearly (possibly more to do with my own reading as opposed to thier writing).
I was mostly joking in my response.
That said you are mostly/kinda right. If person A hits a pedestrian, person b, then person b can sue person A’s insurance. Two major issues… The insurance can afford much better lawyers than person B and can afford to drag it out longer, resulting in person B not getting the compensation they should. Also person A has/will pay more in monthy charges than the insurance will likely ever pay out. That is why they make profit.
It’s a loss for both parties to have insurance.
I’m not sure if either of your points are quite right.
The first is that auto insurers aggressively fight suits. I think they’re generally settled quickly. Lawyers are brutally expensive, a sustained fight very quickly becomes more expensive than a payout.
The second is the notion that an individuals lifetime premium payments are capping the injury payout in order for an insurer to stay in the black. That isn’t the gamble insurers are making. Their bet is that MOST of thier drivers won’t end up with a massive liability, which is why they can payout an individual liability far in excess of that person’s lifetime payments and still stay comfortably in profit.
I’m sorry, I think we agree and I explained it wrong.