Michigan (where I live) is a no-fault auto insurance state. I’ve been told that I’m in a car crash, my premiums will increase even if I am **not **at fault.
Is this true?
Maybe. But the real question would be whether you’re already paying higher rates on account of mandatory “no fault” policies.
I’ve not lived in Michigan, but in other no-fault states I have lived in: it depends. Your rates are based on the total number of accidents, but also the time period over which they occur. One accident a decade or so is not likely to raise your rates; being hit several times in a year (even if you’re not at fault for any of them) will.
As for Machine Elf’s aside, rates are hard to compare, but generally speaking, my insurance bill has been lower in no-fault states (presumably because of the lower associated things like court costs outweighing the “spreading out” of payouts to more customers.
I live in MA, 2.5 years ago my car was totalled in an accident where I was not at fault (sitting not moving at a light, 2 other cars collided and one hit me). My rates did not go up.
It’s quite difficult to assess whether no-fault is cheaper, because states vary considerably in cost for other reasons, and it may be that the adoption of no-fault is motivated by high costs.
If no-fault insurance was a clearly advantageous way to run the system, all states would have changed to no-fault.
If no-fault insurance was clearly disadvantageous, then those which switched would switch back.
Since neither has happened, we can conclude that there is no consensus on the subject. And, indeed, as pointed out above, it may be something that depends upon the state in question. For example, would no-fault be better in California, given the litigious nature of that state?
I assume that “no fault” means that your insurance Co bears the cost of your damage, regardless of who was to blame.
In this case, is it possible to recover any copay (or other costs - hire cars, medical, lost wages etc) from the third party, or do such policies not have copay?
I think all no-fault states allow for tort liability to kick in when the damages are are (by some definition) large. See here:
“There hasn’t been a new no-fault state since 1976. In fact, over the last couple of decades, many states have switched back to the liability system. This is mostly because no-fault stopped saving people as much money.”
https://www.google.com/amp/blog.esurance.com/the-nitty-gritty-of-no-fault-insurance/amp/
The OP’s question contains a bit of a non sequitur.
In a no-fault state there is generally no legal finding of fault after an accident. So how is the OP or his insurer is able to confidently state “The OP isn’t at fault in this accident.”? Short answer: they aren’t. The OP is depending on their insurance co to honestly assess the evidence and arrive at an honest answer. Whether that’s generally plausible or laughable I leave to the reader.
Certainly there are clean cases like muldoonthief’s post #4. But there are a lot more that are murky. Made doubly so by the actual-factual at-fault party’s strong tendency to lie about details to create some murk.
In an idealized world, fault would have nothing to do with a driver’s rates. Your rates next year should reflect the odds you’re going to make a claim next year. If those odds are high it doesn’t matter whether you’re a crappy driver or are surrounded by crappy drivers. In fact, rates *do *vary by your zip code. Which is saying in effect “It’s your fault you chose to live and drive in an area with lots of crappy drivers. So here’s your rate increase even though you’re a fine driver.”
In general accidents are rare enough that it’s a reasonable simplification to simply assign 50% fault to each driver. Soon enough the good drivers (including good defensive skills, not just avoiding doing dumb stuff themselves) will demonstrate few accidents. Conversely the crappy drivers will demonstrate more accidents. And be charged accordingly.
Assuming you mean deductible - when my car was totaled the insurance company waived the deductible. This may have been because the person who initiated the accident had the same insurance company as me, I didn’t investigate too closely, I was just happy that I didn’t have to fight for any of the money I was due. And as LSLGuy pointed out, I was pretty much as “clean” as possible in terms of fault.
When you say, “I didn’t have to fight for any of the money I was due” what does that mean? Correspondence with the insurance Co, or in court?
In the UK, except in the most serious cases) the insurance companies apportion blame. Most of us carry a fairly large excess (deductible) (mine is £600) and I could recover that (and other costs) from the at fault party, if they decide I was blameless. In practice, since both sides will often claim innocence with no witnesses, the result is 50/50. The advent of dashcams is having some effect though and can help considerably to establish innocence after a collision.
Michigan’s no fault law includes a mini-tort provision only. You can recover up to $500 from the at-fault driver based in percentage of fault. So, yes, in Michigan we do assign fault in accidents.
It’s “generally recognized” the Michigan’s insurance costs higher than in other states; some people complain about it, others not so much. For example, I’m not really worried about the cost, but it’s a little disappointing that if some idiot T-bones my Expedition, then I can’t recover that value from said idiot (I don’t carry collision; it’s 12 years old for crying out loud!).
As for deductible, you insurance company will base whether or not you have to pay based on both fault and negligence. I had a claim several years ago wherein I was 100% at fault, but they judged that I wasn’t negligent, so deductible waived and no rate increase.
If you have an accident with an out-of-state driver, or when you’re out of state, things can become trickier.
I just meant that the insurance company’s initial offer for how much they’d pay for a total loss was about $800 more than I was expecting, and they said they were waiving the deductible, so I took the money and stopped caring about it. I didn’t try to figure out why they were waiving the deductible - whether they had already recovered it from another party or what.
I believe that here in NJ insurers are prohibited from raising rates for a driver who is not at fault.
My insurance is from N.J. Manufacturers and is excellent. When someone failed to stop at a stop sign, totaled my car and caused me injury, my insurance paid for all my expenses and then they went after the other driver to recoup their losses. This included recovering my deductible. My rates didn’t go up a dime.
Over a period of about 5 years I had about 5 accidents that were other people’s fault – people hitting me while I was stopped at a light or stop sign, for example – and my rates never went up.