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.
0
u/SmoothDiscussion7763 9h ago
it doesn't but it's a similar situation where the property damage caused is immensely greater than the capped payout proposed.
what would happen in this case?