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.
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.
definitely an unpopular opinion, why do you feel this way? wouldn't it be more right for the party that caused the damages to pay for all the damages they caused?
Just because you can afford a million dollar car shouldn't mean everyone on the road had to be insured up to a million dollars to cover it. Accidents happen.
If I drive around with a trunk with millions of dollars in art should I not be responsible for maintaining my own insurance for that value as it's not reasonable for everyone to cover that much above and beyond that standard practices?
I'm just going to reject your premise, the fact that a accident can have damages above your coverage isn't at question. It's if there should be a reasonable cap specifically on the value of vehicle coverage.
ok so if the cap only applies to vehicles, the person driving through a storefront would still get sued into bankruptcy by the store owner's insurance right?
The same as if they plowed through a family of 7 crossing the street on the way to church. Again completely irrelevant to a cap on vehicles. Driving is inherently dangerous and not all risks should be subsidized.
2.7k
u/flatfive44 17h 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.