Blog
Why Have a No-Fault Automobile Insurance System?
Posted by: euser
December 26, 2006
Topic: Minnesota No-Fault Law
Despite what insurance companies and some state legislators may say about the costs incurred by using a no-fault insurance, this system remains the most effective and equitable means of resolving disputes arising out of automobile collision. A quick look at the scope of the Minnesota No-Fault Act gives us five reasons why we should keep this system.
65B.42 PURPOSE.
The detrimental impact of automobile accidents on uncompensated injured persons, upon the
orderly and efficient administration of justice in this state, and in various other ways requires that
sections 65B.41 to 65.71 /bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=65B.41&year=2006/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=65B.71&year=2006adopted to effect the following purposes:
(1) to relieve the severe economic distress of uncompensated victims of automobile accidents
within this state by requiring automobile insurers to offer and automobile owners to maintain
automobile insurance policies or other pledges of indemnity which will provide prompt payment
of specified basic economic loss benefits to victims of automobile accidents without regard
to whose fault caused the accident;
(2) to prevent the overcompensation of those automobile accident victims suffering minor
injuries by restricting the right to recover general damages to cases of serious injury;
(3) to encourage appropriate medical and rehabilitation treatment of the automobile accident
victim by assuring prompt payment for such treatment;
(4) to speed the administration of justice, to ease the burden of litigation on the courts of this
state, and to create a system of small claims arbitration to decrease the expense of and to simplify
litigation, and to create a system of mandatory intercompany arbitration to assure a prompt and
proper allocation of the costs of insurance benefits between motor vehicle insurers;
(5) to correct imbalances and abuses in the operation of the automobile accident tort liability
system, to provide offsets to avoid duplicate recovery, to require medical examination and
disclosure, and to govern the effect of advance payments prior to final settlement of liability.
News
Product Liability
[07/29] Govt to crash test 55 vehicles under new system
[07/29] Toyota recalls 412,000 cars in US, mostly Avalons
[07/26] Nap Nanny recliners recalled
[07/26] Medical device problems hurt 70,000+ kids annually
[07/22] 1.3 million Smith and Noble blinds recalled
Read More
Personal Injury
[07/30] Mont. officials await test results in bear attack
[07/30] Inmate sues man he's convicted of burglarizing
[07/30] 1,200 homes evacuated in LA Co. as fire spreads
[07/29] Bear attack in Montana leaves 1 dead, 2 injured
[07/29] APNewsBreak: Pa. diocese sued in accuser's suicide
Read More
Employment Practices
[07/29] Initial jobless claims drop to 457,000
[07/22] Elevated jobless claims point to weak labor market
[07/22] Additional jobless benefits hinge on House vote
[07/19] Obama to GOP: Restore jobless benefits
Read More
Topics
Bankruptcy Law
Minnesota Dog Bite Attorneys
Minnesota No-Fault
Minnesota No-Fault Law
Minnesota Personal Injury
Social Security Disability
Workers' Compensation
Wrongful Death
Recent Updates
July 07, 2008
Road Construction Injuries
January 24, 2008
Workers' Compensation
January 24, 2008
Dog Attacks
November 06, 2007
Possible E. coli Contamination Forces General Mills to Recall Totino?s and Jeno?s Frozen Pizzas
October 04, 2007
Minnesota Recognizes Negligent Credentialing







Back to Top






