4 ms·

The point of insurance is to protect the person you hit by ensuring someone will pay their costs. If the legal minimum is far below the potential costs, then th

The point of insurance is to protect the person you hit by ensuring someone will pay their costs. If the legal minimum is far below the potential costs, then the insurance is failing at that purpose, because it doesn't matter how many millions you settle for, most people can't pay it to you and being owed by a deadbeat doesn't pay hospital bills.

xtreme 11y ago
Should the legal minimum be close to the highest potential cost? You can cause massive damage if you hit a luxury car, or are involved in a multi-vehicle accident. Should you be forced to carry insurance that would cover these scenarios? That would drive up the premium of the legally required insurance, and likely increase the number of uninsured motorists. Considering most accidents result in rather small payouts, there must be a cost-benefit analysis done to determine the legally required minimum.
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  I think a fair legal minimum is the average price of a new car.
  - chefkoch 11y ago
    The price of the totaled car is by far the smallest sum if you have really injured someone. In germany the default amount your are insured against is 50 or 100 mio €. 20k is a joke.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    The property is a trivial cost in comparison to personal injury liability.
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
      Yes, of course! I never claimed otherwise! However, you need some number so I think that makes some sense as a starting point. 20k is the minimum here and that's low in my opinion. Actually now that I think about it there bodily injury is separate from property injury. Here it's 20k property injury and 30k bodily injury are the legal minimums. I just remember being surprised because cars are so expensive it is not hard to do 20k in property damage, just hit a late model car.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jacalata 11y ago
  >there must be a cost-benefit analysis done to determine the legally required minimum If you are saying that this is necessary, then I agree. If you are saying it is happening already, then I am skeptical and would like to see evidence.

xtreme 11y ago

Should the legal minimum be close to the highest potential cost? You can cause massive damage if you hit a luxury car, or are involved in a multi-vehicle accident. Should you be forced to carry insurance that would cover these scenarios? That would drive up the premium of the legally required insurance, and likely increase the number of uninsured motorists. Considering most accidents result in rather small payouts, there must be a cost-benefit analysis done to determine the legally required minimum.

nommm-nommm 11y ago
I think a fair legal minimum is the average price of a new car.
- chefkoch 11y ago
  The price of the totaled car is by far the smallest sum if you have really injured someone. In germany the default amount your are insured against is 50 or 100 mio €. 20k is a joke.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  The property is a trivial cost in comparison to personal injury liability.
  - nommm-nommm 11y ago
    Yes, of course! I never claimed otherwise! However, you need some number so I think that makes some sense as a starting point. 20k is the minimum here and that's low in my opinion. Actually now that I think about it there bodily injury is separate from property injury. Here it's 20k property injury and 30k bodily injury are the legal minimums. I just remember being surprised because cars are so expensive it is not hard to do 20k in property damage, just hit a late model car.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jacalata 11y ago
>there must be a cost-benefit analysis done to determine the legally required minimum If you are saying that this is necessary, then I agree. If you are saying it is happening already, then I am skeptical and would like to see evidence.