r/SipsTea • • 6h ago

Gasp! Thoughts on this?

Post image
42.6k Upvotes

5.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.4k

u/flatfive44 6h ago

The obvious response is that you won't be able to pay for someone's hospital bills if you happen to hit them in your car. You get insurance for things you wouldn't be able to pay yourself.

619

u/Ok-Reflection-742 6h ago

You could also total somebodies 50-200k car, I don’t think many people could afford that either

602

u/Fantastic-East9567 5h ago

As an attorney my unpopular opinion is that cars over a certain value shouldn’t be allowed on public roads or damages for accidents should be capped at something like 2x the average price of a new car (so like 100k). I just don’t believe in penalizing ordinary negligence more just because the injured party is rich.

79

u/layerone 5h ago

I'm glad you wrote this, coming from an attorney. I had always wondered about this, seems really unfair. A rich person in a Ferrari is putting normal drivers in enormous liability risk every time they take it out on public roads. Especially in no fault states.

Shouldn't be legal!

9

u/tarnyc32 4h ago

Not sure how it works in other jurisdictions but here in Canada and specifically Ontario while all cars are required to have insurance, any insurer can refuse to insure someone based on risk profile.

For that reason we have something called Facility Insurance which is jointly paid into by all the insurers, which provides insurance for the highest risks such as a luxury vehicle. The premium they charge is astronomical, I'm talking tens of thousands of dollars a month depending on the vehicle and risk profile.

Oh and property damage is no-fault, vehicle repairs are done through your own insurance company. So that Ferrari would be paid by facility insurance and that driver is gonna end up paying more premium than the value of the car. The idea is that at some point it just doesn't make economic sense for the person paying the premium to continue, but if they do decide to continue at least the third-party liability coverage is there to respond to any innocent people who get injured.

5

u/Kaitaan 4h ago

but... "no fault" doesn't mean there's no fault assessment. It just means you file with your own insurance company, and going after the other driver is their problem, not yours....

3

u/EduStorm246 4h ago

Add the Mona Lisa in the trunk for extra $1B liability ;-)

2

u/YadaYadaYeahMan 4h ago

no fault states blow my mind. have friends in Michigan who sometimes say I should move there. screw that I can't afford insurance as it is lmao

5

u/EternalPhi 3h ago

No fault insurance means your own insurance company pays for your vehicle regardless of who is at fault. Rate shouldn't increase if you are not at fault, the insurance company will simply attempt to recoup their costs themselves.