5 ms·

The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even ter

The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault, their insurance should pay out to those they damaged. The reality is that may only happen if you have an entity of similar magnitude to go to bat for you. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to not get comprehensive insurance, but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit.

gruez 5y ago
>I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault But that's the thing. The other driver was only declared "at fault" by the police report, which might hold some weight, but isn't the final say. >but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit. what would that entail?
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. Even without insurance or greater wealth, a party from whom you believe a liability should exist who has no interest in paying could have done the same thing here. If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist. > but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit. Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process.
- gizmo686 5y ago
  > Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process. Not nessasarily. The 'additional weight' could still be something that requires a suit to take advantage of directly, but which the threat of compels behavior. For example, many localities have rental laws that compel the landlord to pay thrice what they would otherwise owe in certain circumstances. E.G. if my landlord simply refuses to refund my security deposit without proper reason, or without following proper procedures within 45 days, then I can sue for 3x the deposit and attorny fees. A similar thing can be implemented for vehicular damages. Something along the lines of: 1) If you are found liable and 2) Were given adaquete notice and oppurtunity to pay and 3) Ought to have known you were liable Then the defendent is entitled to punitive damages for your making them take you to court. You don't even have to go as far as most tenent laws go. You could allow for a loosing defendent to argue that there defense was reasonable, (or reasonable given evidence available to them at the time), and that they should therefore not owe punitive damages. Of course, this still is only tangentially related to insurance.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    What you propose is additional weight that does require going to court, basically additional incentive to settle if it is reasonably perceived the other party will take the case to court. But there are already additional costs the insurance company would bear if it went to court, which is why they will mostly settle if there is any substantial evidence (like a police report) and even a shadow of a threat of legal action, including—but not limited to—an insurance company on the other side. Neither that nor any additional weight you give the police report that requires going to court alters the calculus at all when the liable party (whether or not they have an insurance company as their agent) is certain you won't take that step.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >3) Ought to have known you were liable How would that even be defined? Is it just based on the balance of evidence available? We already have something for this. If one party is really obviously guilty, then the other party can call for a summary judgement and skip much of the expensive trial.
    - gizmo686 5y ago
      Summary judgement applies when the facts not in dispute are sufficient to reach a legal conclusion. If there is a material dispute of facts, no matter how obvious the evidence is, it must go to trial. Further, summary judgement only reduces the cost (for both sides); it does nothing to act as a deterent. > How would that even be defined? That depends on how claiment friendly you want to be. The key piece would be: "based on what the defendant knew when they refused the request for payment". Standard evidenciary rules apply for showing that the defendant knew something. In this case, the key evidence would be a police report and pictures sent to the insurance company, so I don't think there would typically be a dispute here. The harder part is defining "ought". Courts already have a reasonable person test they apply to other situations. You could also apply the clear and convincing evidence standard to the applicable evidence (or, if you really wanted to, either preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt). The real answer is that in this hypothetical the legislature would pass a law, and then the appellate courts will spend decades clarifying the law until the legislature changes it again.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  That doesn't seem reasonable. Whoever is liable should pay, there shouldn't be a little game where you can avoid paying because it will cost the other guy too much. Imagine if murder cases were only prosecuted if the family had funds to investigate, and they only got refunded if the murder were proven.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Imagine if murder cases were only prosecuted if the family had funds to investigate, and they only got refunded if the murder were proven. Vehicular crimes obviously don't depend on either a victim or the victim choosing to take legal action for the offense, OTOH, wrongful death, the civil cause of action parallel to murder and other criminal homicide offenses...has exactly the same requirement as any other tort that someone has to file suit. To the extent there is a criminal or other public offense (traffic infractions may or may not be strictly criminal depending on state law) involved in the accident, that would have been pursued without the victim lifting a finger as a consequence of the police report, just like murder investigations.
- d136o 5y ago
  > If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist. I think this might be at the heart of it. The article (about how hard actuarial math is) and the insurance buyers make the mistake of thinking that all that matters is downside in case of event X with particular probability P. However, instead you have to think about chances of X AND chances of being able to navigate a system that is outright adversarial to parties that are not the insurance companies. The “house” always wins…
  - gruez 5y ago
    >The article (about how hard actuarial math is) and the insurance buyers make the mistake of thinking that all that matters is downside in case of event X with particular probability P. However, instead you have to think about chances of X AND chances of being able to navigate a system that is outright adversarial to parties that are not the insurance companies. Are people going through and calculating the expected utility of purchasing insurance, and that calculation is being thrown off by counterparty risk, leading them to buy insurance they wouldn't have bought? I doubt it. >The “house” always wins… is there an expectation otherwise? You buy insurance to protect against risks, not because you think it's a positive expected value investment.
    - diffeomorphism 5y ago
      Yes, the expectation was that the risks are those you bought insurance for. Additional protection against being bullied by other insurance companies is not obvious.

gruez 5y ago

>I think we could all agree that in an ideal world if someone is at fault But that's the thing. The other driver was only declared "at fault" by the police report, which might hold some weight, but isn't the final say. >but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit. what would that entail?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The 'scam' seems to be insofar as wealthy and powerful entities can exploit the functional inability of those less wealthy and powerful to meet them on even terms in the legal system. Even without insurance or greater wealth, a party from whom you believe a liability should exist who has no interest in paying could have done the same thing here. If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist. > but police reports should probably carry some weight without requiring a suit. Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process.

gizmo686 5y ago
> Any proposal to do that in effect makes the police investigation a court of first instance, which either means creating additional procedural rights that apply before it can be completed (driving up costs) or a very real denial of due process. Not nessasarily. The 'additional weight' could still be something that requires a suit to take advantage of directly, but which the threat of compels behavior. For example, many localities have rental laws that compel the landlord to pay thrice what they would otherwise owe in certain circumstances. E.G. if my landlord simply refuses to refund my security deposit without proper reason, or without following proper procedures within 45 days, then I can sue for 3x the deposit and attorny fees. A similar thing can be implemented for vehicular damages. Something along the lines of: 1) If you are found liable and 2) Were given adaquete notice and oppurtunity to pay and 3) Ought to have known you were liable Then the defendent is entitled to punitive damages for your making them take you to court. You don't even have to go as far as most tenent laws go. You could allow for a loosing defendent to argue that there defense was reasonable, (or reasonable given evidence available to them at the time), and that they should therefore not owe punitive damages. Of course, this still is only tangentially related to insurance.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  What you propose is additional weight that does require going to court, basically additional incentive to settle if it is reasonably perceived the other party will take the case to court. But there are already additional costs the insurance company would bear if it went to court, which is why they will mostly settle if there is any substantial evidence (like a police report) and even a shadow of a threat of legal action, including—but not limited to—an insurance company on the other side. Neither that nor any additional weight you give the police report that requires going to court alters the calculus at all when the liable party (whether or not they have an insurance company as their agent) is certain you won't take that step.
- gruez 5y ago
  >3) Ought to have known you were liable How would that even be defined? Is it just based on the balance of evidence available? We already have something for this. If one party is really obviously guilty, then the other party can call for a summary judgement and skip much of the expensive trial.
  - gizmo686 5y ago
    Summary judgement applies when the facts not in dispute are sufficient to reach a legal conclusion. If there is a material dispute of facts, no matter how obvious the evidence is, it must go to trial. Further, summary judgement only reduces the cost (for both sides); it does nothing to act as a deterent. > How would that even be defined? That depends on how claiment friendly you want to be. The key piece would be: "based on what the defendant knew when they refused the request for payment". Standard evidenciary rules apply for showing that the defendant knew something. In this case, the key evidence would be a police report and pictures sent to the insurance company, so I don't think there would typically be a dispute here. The harder part is defining "ought". Courts already have a reasonable person test they apply to other situations. You could also apply the clear and convincing evidence standard to the applicable evidence (or, if you really wanted to, either preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt). The real answer is that in this hypothetical the legislature would pass a law, and then the appellate courts will spend decades clarifying the law until the legislature changes it again.
lordnacho 5y ago
That doesn't seem reasonable. Whoever is liable should pay, there shouldn't be a little game where you can avoid paying because it will cost the other guy too much. Imagine if murder cases were only prosecuted if the family had funds to investigate, and they only got refunded if the murder were proven.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Imagine if murder cases were only prosecuted if the family had funds to investigate, and they only got refunded if the murder were proven. Vehicular crimes obviously don't depend on either a victim or the victim choosing to take legal action for the offense, OTOH, wrongful death, the civil cause of action parallel to murder and other criminal homicide offenses...has exactly the same requirement as any other tort that someone has to file suit. To the extent there is a criminal or other public offense (traffic infractions may or may not be strictly criminal depending on state law) involved in the accident, that would have been pursued without the victim lifting a finger as a consequence of the police report, just like murder investigations.
d136o 5y ago
> If you aren't willing to sue over a disputed liability, it might as well not exist. I think this might be at the heart of it. The article (about how hard actuarial math is) and the insurance buyers make the mistake of thinking that all that matters is downside in case of event X with particular probability P. However, instead you have to think about chances of X AND chances of being able to navigate a system that is outright adversarial to parties that are not the insurance companies. The “house” always wins…
- gruez 5y ago
  >The article (about how hard actuarial math is) and the insurance buyers make the mistake of thinking that all that matters is downside in case of event X with particular probability P. However, instead you have to think about chances of X AND chances of being able to navigate a system that is outright adversarial to parties that are not the insurance companies. Are people going through and calculating the expected utility of purchasing insurance, and that calculation is being thrown off by counterparty risk, leading them to buy insurance they wouldn't have bought? I doubt it. >The “house” always wins… is there an expectation otherwise? You buy insurance to protect against risks, not because you think it's a positive expected value investment.
  - diffeomorphism 5y ago
    Yes, the expectation was that the risks are those you bought insurance for. Additional protection against being bullied by other insurance companies is not obvious.