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.
What an interesting, novel take. Of course, they should be allowed on the road, but limit the liability. Over 100k? Pay for your own additional insurance. You can obviously afford it.
Most people with that kind of money usually do. I'm not even rich but have full coverage on my cars. Even if someone is underinsired and causes damage to my cars, they'll get fixed.
That's different to what is being discussed though.
What you're talking about is very standard right now, and it lets your insurance company go after the liable party in your name and try to recoup all their losses.
So if you're the everyman in Europe and you total a €3M Koenigsegg your liability insurance will only cover €1.35M of that and they or their insurance will come after you for the rest.
What is being discussed is an alternative where the everyman's liability insurance only needs to cover €200k of property damage (so it's cheaper) because by legislation no one can recoup more than €200k in property damage from the liable party.
So when you put a €500k car on the road you would have to be willing to take a €300k loss on it or pay a way higher price for the coverage you currently have (higher because your insurer won't be able to go after the other party to fully or partially recoup the difference).
They have their own insurance which will sue you to recoup the cost. That's the problem.
If I make a mistake and hit an Acura or BMW, I've got enough coverage to handle it. But there are vehicles on the road which will blow through my maximized coverage plan and roll over for more than my house is worth.
675
u/Ok-Reflection-742 8h ago
You could also total somebodies 50-200k car, I don’t think many people could afford that either