I’m thinking he went with a really bare policy to keep his payments as low as possible. Understandable, but there are plenty of affordable policies with lower deductibles, and I believe ones that waive your deductible if you were the one hit.
It’s only flawed if you’re not keeping these aspects and state laws in mind, I’m guessing.
No, it’s flawed because the law shouldn’t hold someone financially responsible for an accident toward which they contributed no negligence or fault. Even if the guy was uninsured he should not have to pay one single penny for the OP’s fault.
I have a massive problem with no-pay no-play laws, too.
Actually now that you mention it, I thought this was standard in Michigan. It’s standard with my policy, and I don’t remember asking for it as an option. That is, if it’s not your fault, no deductible. Heck, years and years ago, I was totally at fault when I backed into an invisible crane (long story). AAA told me that even though I was at fault, I wasn’t negligent, and they waived my deductible.
Home insurance works that way. If someone commits arson against your property, or you’re hit by a tornado, or your sump pump stops working, you pay the deductible, even though it’s not your fault. Protect what’s of value to you.
Most of the things that cause large-scale damage to a home are acts of god. The reason you have to pay the deductible is because you can’t collect from god. The exception, arson, is a crime and the criminal would be held financially liable for the deductible if he were to be found. If someone crashes their car into your home, it’s their fault and they have to pay your damages including deductible. If a deer runs into your home, you can try to hold the deer responsible but again–act of god. We don’t hold deer or gods responsible for their actions. We do hold arsonists and car-crash-causers responsible (at least in normal fault states).
In all of the cases you listed, the person or deity responsible for the damages is not able to pay the deductible. In this case, that person is known and is able to be held responsible for the damages. So it should be freaking paid.
rachelellogram, this was why I was so taken aback when I got the call from the guy I hit. I simply assumed his insurance would waive his deductible.
If, somehow, he was able to obtain a policy (perhaps at such a low rate), which required him to cough up the deductible, whether he was liable or not, well… that was the risk he was willing to take.
I feel horrible about it, but I’ve already had to pay the CI fine as well as my own deductible, and I’m not what you’d call wealthy, so I’m not about to fork over cash because he decided to take that risk on his policy. Anyway, it was an honest accident on my part, but this is why we purchase insurance. If it had been the other way around, my insurance would have waived my deductible, and he’d have to pay his $1000 no matter what.
I’m not blaming you here, I’m blaming the system. Accidents happen. But imo, there shouldn’t be a need to waive any deductible. Your insurance company should pay it because it was your fault.
This is, again, why I don’t think the no-fault system is a good one at all.
Fair enough.
cmyk - you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read the link above from the state of Michigan on how “no fault” insurance works in your state. Your insurance company should be paying the entire amount of the claim for the damage you did to his car. His deductible should not even be an issue in this accident.
I think you misread the article.
You are right. My bad and apologies to cmyk. What a fucked up state. Glad I do’t live there.
Touche.
All in all for the no-fault nay-sayers, I actually appreciate no-fault. I insure my own property, and you insure your own property, and that’s the end of it. If you don’t value what’s yours, then tough. No silly law suits, no silly punitive rewards, and the state backs catastrophic claims.
I’m with Balthisar on this one.