4 ms·
By 'upper bound' here, I meant for the insured. Above the deductible (and premium payments), the insured's exposure is largely lost time and headaches, the rem
by ISL 2y ago
By 'upper bound' here, I meant for the insured.
Above the deductible (and premium payments), the insured's exposure is largely lost time and headaches, the remaining financial burden is borne by the insurer. If anything, the presence of insurance might increase the amount of compensation an aggrieved party might be able to reap.
Agreed that there are plenty of places in the world where car-insurance is non-existent. In those places, accident victims may not receive proper compensation for their injuries/destroyed property or the recompense may not be monetary in nature.
- cjbgkagh 2y agoI re-used the 'upper bound' for the insurance - there is no upper bound in liability for the insured. Tort law does not specify a limit in liability - though it can be a bit complicated as there can be other laws around this. A 'fully insured' person is taken to mean sufficiently insured to meet a law, or sufficiently insured to meet a reasonable level of liability. While highly unlikely it's possible that someone with $1,000,000 in insurance can incur $10,000,000 in liability. To your final point, life is unfair yet it continues. I understand that you wish the world would always provide proper compensation for victims, my position is that even if that was theoretically possible, which I don't think it is, it may not even be optimal.