Calif. Consumer Advocate Rosenfield Urges Mass. to Repeal No-Fault, Make Other Auto Changes
East News • March 29, 2005
Massachusetts should repeal its no-fault law, end its reliance on uniform state-set rates, and remove the state antitrust exemption for auto insurers if it wants to improve its auto insurance ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: The Real Truth about Insurance
Posted On: March 31, 2005, 11:07 am CST
Posted By: Stacey
Comment:
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.
Subject: The Real Truth about Insurance
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.