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/
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.