The Reason for Mandatory Insurance

Every week I present an article about the importance of insurance, but this week it's an article about the reason. Today it's Stephen Povinelli who will explain us about why we all have to pay for insurance.

Why Do We Have Mandatory Auto Insurance?

The term compulsory automobile insurance, unfortunately, is subject to several interpretations and this fact has resulted in no end of confusion. It is easily conceivable that the motorist might be required by law to insure his car against fire, theft, collision, earthquake, glass breaking, etc., but such types of insurance all apply to the car as such, and are not directly related to the problem which arises when the owner or operator of a car injures or kills some other person or persons.

Therefore the controversy centers about the meaning of the words "liability" and "compensation." In certain respects these two types of insurance are diametrically opposed to each other. Especially this is true from the viewpoint of the injured person attempting to get monetary remuneration. His chance of success differs greatly in respect to these two varieties of insurance.

If we disregard for the moment certain exceptions and qualifications, we may say that mandatory compensation insurance means that each car owner would be required to pay an annual premium to either an insurance company or to a state fund for the purpose of paying benefits to victims of auto accidents, or to their dependents in case of death.

The question of fault would be raised only incidentally, if at all, the courts having nothing to do with the case; and with few exceptions, the injured person would be certain of receiving compensation based upon a prescribed table of benefits. An automobile compensation commission would consider the facts in each case, as does an industrial commission in connection with workmen's compensation, and would make awards accordingly.

Thus the whole question of fault would be disregarded, largely on the twofold assumption that fault is difficult to determine in motor accidents and that such accidents, no matter whose fault they are, create social problems of dependency which can best be met by motorists as a group.
Compulsory auto liability insurance, unlike car compensation insurance, is based upon the common law of negligence and the doctrine of personal fault. Each car owner is required to purchase a liability insurance policy as a prerequisite to obtaining a license. If the injured person or his representatives can obtain a court verdict for "damages," the organization with which the driver is insured is responsible for paying the bill within the limits prescribed in the insurance policy. The motorist is thus protected within the limits of the policy.

Outside of a few inconveniences he is just as well off as if no accident had occurred, providing the court does not render a verdict in excess of the amount covered by the insurance. The injured person, to obtain remuneration, must win his case in the courts. This involves proving that he contributed nothing to the cause of the accident, and that the driver alone was one hundred per cent at fault. It has been estimated that in probably two-thirds of all injury cases the plaintiff is unable to prove this and thus can obtain no remuneration by resort to the courts.

The public at large draws little or no distinction between the compensation and liability principles of auto insurance, despite the basic differences. Some newspaper editorials, magazine articles and pamphlets make the same error. Even legislators are confused by the two principles. The average person, unacquainted with the meaning of insurance terms, in approving mandatory insurance thinks he is approving a plan by which all of the victims of motor accidents receive compensation. The term, liability insurance, is often used when the speaker is actually thinking of compensation insurance. Members of the insurance profession and others have attempted to clear up this difficulty but the misunderstanding still persists in most minds.

Site visitors can compare auto insurance quotes for popular cars by make and model, read car reviews, view safety ratings, and request cheap auto insurance quotes for any potential vehicle purchase well ahead of time.

Source: EzineArticles.com.

Also, I remind you that you can get auto insurance quotes at BringDownMyQuote.com.

Thank you Stephen, it's much clearer now.

Nadav

nadavs

How to Lower Insurance Rates

Every Monday you read here advice about lowering insurance rates, and there is no better way to start August than a good article about this issue. This time, Stephen Povinelli will educate us.

Factors That Can Lower Auto Insurance Rates

In several ways, insurance coverage is a complex industry. In one way, however, it is very easy: the money insurance companies take in from insurance buyers must produce a pool of funds adequate enough to cover all insured losses, plus the providers cost of doing market, taxes and profit.

Over time, insurance providers have developed a rational system of predicting losses and setting premiums. Based on sound data about factors that increase and reduce losses, this system of risk evaluation enables insurers to calculate a premium for each driver that presents the driver with a fair share price for the losses that will be experienced by the group whose risk profile is similar.

As well, this system engenders healthy competition among insurance providers with regard to premiums. This benefits the majority of drivers-who do not fall into high risk categories-by making insurance available to them at the lowest possible rates.

Insurers seek to set premiums so that each group will pay its fair share of the cost of insured losses, expenses and taxes. Most insurance companies actively oppose efforts to force them to abandon pricing methods that are fair to insurance customers and that help insurance providers to keep their industry predictable, an important goal in any industry and an absolute matter of survival for insurance.

One of insurers' concerns is that people understand the criteria relate to loss data and not to any type of prejudice. Unfortunately, in the ongoing societal debate about these issues, insurance providers my sometimes appear to be defending social attitudes that other people find offensive or objectionable. Insurers are not defending any type of social attitude.

What they're defending is the insurance mechanism itself, which relates the cost of insurance to the hazard insured against. Cost-based pricing is based solely on actuarial data, which are completely blind to any form of social distinctions.

Insurance companies are also concerned that before supporting changes for social reasons, people understand the full implications of such changes. If gender is to be abandoned as a cost factor, for instance, people must accept that the trade-off is not between an unfair gender-related system and a fair unisex system. While it may be considered socially fair to charge young men and women drivers the same rates for ear insurance, actuarially it is unreasonable.

Younger ladies will be paying more into the insurance pool in premiums than is justified by their losses. What is really at stake, then, is not a fair system versus an unfair system, but how society chooses to define the term fair. Insurance firms believe a truly fair system is a cost-based one. Actuarial science, not social wisdom, is the backbone of the insurance market.

Find more general auto insurance tips online. Compare discount auto insurance quotes online.

Thank you, Stephen!

I hope you found this article useful,
Nadav

nadavs