Posted On: April 27, 2006, 2:27 pm CDT

Posted By: Chris

Mike,

It is sad that everyone doesn't carry enough insurance (if any at all) to satisfy any possible claim against them. And, it is sad that some people will not be able to recover all of the damages due them, even horrific damages, because some people are uninsured or underinsured. But, private insurance is not social welfare.

Suppose both of two tort-feasors were uninsured, but the one that was 90% responsible was broke and unemployed; while the other one, the one with 10% liability, had a steady job, and had a little money saved. Would it be fair to make the party with only 10% liability pay 100% of the damages, just because the person with the greater liability has nothing? Suppose it was you who had to spend the rest of your working life paying off a judgment that was only 10% your doing? Suppose it made it impossible for you to buy a house because you couldn't get credit at a price you could afford? Or, you had to always buy used cars because you couldn't afford a new one? Or, you couldn't afford to put your children through college?

Why should someone who is responsible enough to buy insurance to protect their financial assets, and that person's insurer, have to pay for something that isn't their fault, just because that person has insurance? Why should they be treated any different than the tort-feasor with no assets and no insurance? Is that fair?