3 ms·

No, he’s (reasonably) upset that the other side’s insurance did not pay out when it was clearly their client’s fault, banking on his difficulty of filing a laws

by SilasX 5y ago

No, he’s (reasonably) upset that the other side’s insurance did not pay out when it was clearly their client’s fault, banking on his difficulty of filing a lawsuit. What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him?

gruez 5y ago
That doesn't really seem to be an issue with insurance per se. In a world without insurance, you could still have people refusing to pay even if it's "clearly" their fault.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It is a problem with the insurance, as it would be for anyone else. Shitty tactics are not exclusive to insurance, but that doesn't negate their actions, or the expectation that they should perform better.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him? A for-profit business. Sure, unequal, wealth-gated practical access to the courts is a real problem, and it impacts basically every area of American society. But it doesn't make mandatory auto liability insurance a scam, any more than it makes literally every commercial industry a scam.
- SilasX 5y ago
  The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam, not that the concept of requiring liability insurance is a scam. Looking back, the original post's comment on that point was a final aside that was ambiguous. But my defense is of the charitable interpretation of that remark. Any auto liability insurance system should be written to avoid that kind of gaming.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam Seems like it's working as intended? The purpose of auto liability insurance is to... insure the policyholder from liability. If you're not the policyholder, it's not working for you. If you're a policy and you're not experiencing losses stemming from your liability (ie. you crashed your own car), it's not covered. Others in this thread seem to think it's a general purpose mechanism for making all parties involved whole, which is a misunderstanding.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      I thought I addressed exactly that in my original reply It’s not really working if and when once side is incentivized not to pay when they can and are obviously at fault. Your comment is like saying “yeah that corporation used a natural pond as a toxic waste dump, so what? Corporations are supposed to make a profit, right?” Yes, they are … subject to other social desiderata like respecting others’ rights. You seem to be attached to some bizarre strawman that the OP was expecting his own liability to cover the other party’s faults. That was never the argument.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >It’s not really working if and when once side is incentivized not to pay when they can and are obviously at fault. This seems to be based on the "making all parties whole" interpretation of insurance, rather than "protect the policyholder". Are you ignoring my prior comment entirely? Are you trying to argue that insurance companies ought to have a "making all parties whole" imperative rather than a "protect the policyholder" imperative? Or perhaps you take issue with insurance companies reneging on their obligations? It seems like from the rest of your comment that you take issue with the latter, rather than the former. My response to that would be: I agree reneging on obligations in general is bad. However, even you seem to agree that there's some room for dispute, hence why answer was qualified with "obviously at fault". Other commenters have suggested somehow punishing insurance companies in cases where they're "obviously at fault" and refuse to pay up. However, the trouble then becomes, what counts as "obviously at fault"? I have not received a satisfactory answer for that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720344.

by SilasX 5y ago

gruez 5y ago

That doesn't really seem to be an issue with insurance per se. In a world without insurance, you could still have people refusing to pay even if it's "clearly" their fault.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
It is a problem with the insurance, as it would be for anyone else. Shitty tactics are not exclusive to insurance, but that doesn't negate their actions, or the expectation that they should perform better.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him? A for-profit business. Sure, unequal, wealth-gated practical access to the courts is a real problem, and it impacts basically every area of American society. But it doesn't make mandatory auto liability insurance a scam, any more than it makes literally every commercial industry a scam.

SilasX 5y ago
The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam, not that the concept of requiring liability insurance is a scam. Looking back, the original post's comment on that point was a final aside that was ambiguous. But my defense is of the charitable interpretation of that remark. Any auto liability insurance system should be written to avoid that kind of gaming.
- gruez 5y ago
  >The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam Seems like it's working as intended? The purpose of auto liability insurance is to... insure the policyholder from liability. If you're not the policyholder, it's not working for you. If you're a policy and you're not experiencing losses stemming from your liability (ie. you crashed your own car), it's not covered. Others in this thread seem to think it's a general purpose mechanism for making all parties involved whole, which is a misunderstanding.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    I thought I addressed exactly that in my original reply It’s not really working if and when once side is incentivized not to pay when they can and are obviously at fault. Your comment is like saying “yeah that corporation used a natural pond as a toxic waste dump, so what? Corporations are supposed to make a profit, right?” Yes, they are … subject to other social desiderata like respecting others’ rights. You seem to be attached to some bizarre strawman that the OP was expecting his own liability to cover the other party’s faults. That was never the argument.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >It’s not really working if and when once side is incentivized not to pay when they can and are obviously at fault. This seems to be based on the "making all parties whole" interpretation of insurance, rather than "protect the policyholder". Are you ignoring my prior comment entirely? Are you trying to argue that insurance companies ought to have a "making all parties whole" imperative rather than a "protect the policyholder" imperative? Or perhaps you take issue with insurance companies reneging on their obligations? It seems like from the rest of your comment that you take issue with the latter, rather than the former. My response to that would be: I agree reneging on obligations in general is bad. However, even you seem to agree that there's some room for dispute, hence why answer was qualified with "obviously at fault". Other commenters have suggested somehow punishing insurance companies in cases where they're "obviously at fault" and refuse to pay up. However, the trouble then becomes, what counts as "obviously at fault"? I have not received a satisfactory answer for that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720344.