5 ms·

I think the Lexus owner’s insurance should pay a standardized repair cost and the Rivian owner’s insurance should have to cover the difference. Why should I ha

I think the Lexus owner’s insurance should pay a standardized repair cost and the Rivian owner’s insurance should have to cover the difference. Why should I have to cover the cost of someone else’s poor decision to buy an ultra expensive to repair vehicle?

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Why should I have to cover the cost of someone else’s poor decision to buy an ultra expensive to repair vehicle? You don't. You have to cover the cost of the damage you caused unlawfully, not the cost of their decision to buy an expensive to repair vehicle. Routine repairs that aren’t due to torts for which other people are liable are the reaponsibility of the owner, and those are the only ones that are natural consequences of the purchase decision. Consequences of tort are...consequences of tort. Victims don’t owe tortfeasors a duty of care to minimize likely damages in the event of tort. As to why you are liable for harms you caused even though they might have been cheaper were the victim differently situated, well, that’s basically the well-established “eggshell skull” rule of tort liability.
- sieongioetnio 3y ago
  However you want to justify it, the result is the same: luxury toys are subsidized by people who don't buy them. Every expensive car sold makes everyone's insurance premiums go up. This is a transfer of wealth from the poor and the prudent to the rich and the vain. Any legal principle that supports that is wrong.
- firstlink 3y ago
  It sounds like you are advocating for the deeply fascistic concept of "personal responsibility". Not a good look.
fwlr 3y ago
Under that system, a Honda Civic driver who’s angry about the ultra-rich could allow himself to ‘accidentally’ rear-end a Lamborghini, knowing that even though he will be found at fault, his insurance has a standardized repair cost cap, while the Lambo driver’s going to be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars (either directly, or his insurance costs are going to skyrocket). It might be possible to design a system that doesn’t have this perversity, but it’s hard to see how that could be possible without imparting at least a little bit of “that car looks expensive, I should take more care around it” expectation onto drivers of regular cars. I do agree that ultra-expensive-to-repair vehicles do impose extra costs, but I also think to some extent that cost is already priced-in by both insurance companies and the current system probably handles it better than it would with your proposed change.
- sillystuff 3y ago
  The alternative is to have the poor and middle class continue to subsidize the rich in the form of everyone paying higher insurance rates so insecure rich people can drive around in over-priced status symbols. A limit of liability on property damage of $20K per vehicle would be much fairer. Want an expensive car, or a car with excessive repair costs? Go for it, but you will shoulder the extra insurance premium costs too instead of forcing e.g., minimum wage workers to help pay for your ego car.
  - fwlr 3y ago
    I mean, a quick search of insurance prices for cars said $1700 for a Honda Civic, $2200 for a Rivian RT1, and $7800 for a Lamborghini Aventador… so I think owners of expensive cars are indeed already shouldering the extra insurance costs? This is what I meant about more expensive cars already being priced in by insurance companies in the current system.
    - kashunstva 3y ago
      The cost of a Lamborghini Aventador is about 21x that of a Civic, give-or-take. I would expect that repair or replacement costs covered by insurance to have a similar sized differential; so if the Civic driver isn’t partially subsidizing the Lamborghini, shouldn’t the driver of the latter be paying $35700 in insurance premiums?
      - fwlr 3y ago
        Would the likelihood of a crash be the same between a Civic and an Aventador? A priori, I would assume they would be different. By how much, I don’t know - but I imagine the insurance companies do know, and they’re pricing the insurance respectively. Insurance companies also change their price based on the gender and age of the driver and how much they use the car. Insurance companies are businesses who want to make money so they’ll charge as much as they can, and they’re also competing with other insurance companies so they’ll also try to undercut each others prices. My point is that they have a lot of data, a lot of incentive to use that data, and a lot of pressure on their pricing. There just doesn’t seem to be very much room to also fit in “let’s all fuck over poor people to save rich people some money”.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Why should I have to cover the cost of someone else’s poor decision to buy an ultra expensive to repair vehicle? You don't. You have to cover the cost of the damage you caused unlawfully, not the cost of their decision to buy an expensive to repair vehicle. Routine repairs that aren’t due to torts for which other people are liable are the reaponsibility of the owner, and those are the only ones that are natural consequences of the purchase decision. Consequences of tort are...consequences of tort. Victims don’t owe tortfeasors a duty of care to minimize likely damages in the event of tort. As to why you are liable for harms you caused even though they might have been cheaper were the victim differently situated, well, that’s basically the well-established “eggshell skull” rule of tort liability.

sieongioetnio 3y ago
However you want to justify it, the result is the same: luxury toys are subsidized by people who don't buy them. Every expensive car sold makes everyone's insurance premiums go up. This is a transfer of wealth from the poor and the prudent to the rich and the vain. Any legal principle that supports that is wrong.
firstlink 3y ago
It sounds like you are advocating for the deeply fascistic concept of "personal responsibility". Not a good look.

fwlr 3y ago

Under that system, a Honda Civic driver who’s angry about the ultra-rich could allow himself to ‘accidentally’ rear-end a Lamborghini, knowing that even though he will be found at fault, his insurance has a standardized repair cost cap, while the Lambo driver’s going to be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars (either directly, or his insurance costs are going to skyrocket). It might be possible to design a system that doesn’t have this perversity, but it’s hard to see how that could be possible without imparting at least a little bit of “that car looks expensive, I should take more care around it” expectation onto drivers of regular cars. I do agree that ultra-expensive-to-repair vehicles do impose extra costs, but I also think to some extent that cost is already priced-in by both insurance companies and the current system probably handles it better than it would with your proposed change.

sillystuff 3y ago
The alternative is to have the poor and middle class continue to subsidize the rich in the form of everyone paying higher insurance rates so insecure rich people can drive around in over-priced status symbols. A limit of liability on property damage of $20K per vehicle would be much fairer. Want an expensive car, or a car with excessive repair costs? Go for it, but you will shoulder the extra insurance premium costs too instead of forcing e.g., minimum wage workers to help pay for your ego car.
- fwlr 3y ago
  I mean, a quick search of insurance prices for cars said $1700 for a Honda Civic, $2200 for a Rivian RT1, and $7800 for a Lamborghini Aventador… so I think owners of expensive cars are indeed already shouldering the extra insurance costs? This is what I meant about more expensive cars already being priced in by insurance companies in the current system.
  - kashunstva 3y ago
    The cost of a Lamborghini Aventador is about 21x that of a Civic, give-or-take. I would expect that repair or replacement costs covered by insurance to have a similar sized differential; so if the Civic driver isn’t partially subsidizing the Lamborghini, shouldn’t the driver of the latter be paying $35700 in insurance premiums?
    - fwlr 3y ago
      Would the likelihood of a crash be the same between a Civic and an Aventador? A priori, I would assume they would be different. By how much, I don’t know - but I imagine the insurance companies do know, and they’re pricing the insurance respectively. Insurance companies also change their price based on the gender and age of the driver and how much they use the car. Insurance companies are businesses who want to make money so they’ll charge as much as they can, and they’re also competing with other insurance companies so they’ll also try to undercut each others prices. My point is that they have a lot of data, a lot of incentive to use that data, and a lot of pressure on their pricing. There just doesn’t seem to be very much room to also fit in “let’s all fuck over poor people to save rich people some money”.