My uncle had a common name, somehow in the early 80's he got caught up in a stolen/mistaken identity issue. He had several DUI's registered wrongly against him. Since he worked for a utility company he needed a license to drive a truck. His employer took care of the company insurance but his personal insurer would not touch him, nor would any other until it was cleared. For about two years he had an insurance card issued by the Ontario government. Crap coverage, esp when the 67 Mustang got stolen.
Maybe this was covered under the unsatisfied judgement fund, all I know was that the Ontario government recognized and gave insurance to "the uninsurable"
Way back in the "Good?" old days:
Early 60's IIRC there was no PST, no vehicle safeties and no mandatory insurance. You could buy a running wreck, pay two dollars to transfer ownership and have transportation.
Mandatory coverage came in but if you couldn't afford it (As a young driver my basic liability was IIRC about $200 a year) you could bypass the system by a fee to the unsatisfied judgement fund. In the event of an at-fault the fund paid the victim and you had to repay the fund over time. UJF was around $50 a year when the minimum wage was under $2.00.
Payback was geared to income so some took forever to anti up at $5 a month. UJF was liability only, no theft or comp.
The only good thing about UJF was that since it wasn't a lucrative pot it wasn't a lucrative target for fraud.
A couple of years ago a friend got hit by a left turner while riding through Ohio and I wish I had a list of the things he was getting compensated for. It's as long as your arm. Pain and suffering, decent wage replacement (Even though his job had LTD) and nit picky little things we wouldn't dream of. Transportation home, accommodation for his wife while he was in hospital etc.
Here's the kicker. He is entitled to those things but if the pickup driver had a cheap policy would the driver be selling her house?
One has to look at what you get and what you give depending on what side of the bumper you're on.
What bugs me is that there is a ton of BS in the insurance system and no one can strain out even the big lumps. As Faulkner put it "Don't confuse facts with the truth."
My opinions:
Victim compensation should be fair but it isn't.
In a not-at-fault crash, wage replacement is basically the minimum wage. The VICTIM can buy extra coverage but why should the victim subsidize the settlement?
Similarly a recovering victim has to use up therapy benefits they have paid for before the insurer coughs up. Again subsidize the guilty.
If your new $70,000 vehicle is repaired its trade in value is diminished. Why should the victim have to lose thousands of dollars at trade in time because someone else can't drive?
If the average premium is now say $1500 a year and has to double to provide fair settlements so be it. It might force people to drive better, force the government to stop issuing licences to incompetents, start investigating frauds etc. I know it's an ugly statement but we can't keep sucking up Wynnes's 15% premium reductions that come with 20% benefit reductions.
Make the system so ugly that the sheep finally revolt.
Even the authors of the no-fault process are saying it isn't working as intended so let's at least strain out some of the bigger lumps.
seriously? Should they have given him a free replacement car?
