No-Fault Car Insurance

Your editorial references a RAND report confirming other studies “that a carefully designed no-fault plan can cut insurance costs substantially.” Let us re-emphasize “carefully designed plan.”

I am in favor of realistically cutting insurance costs and providing a means for more motorists to be able to acquire auto insurance. But may we avoid the Michigan plan, the horrors of which I experienced in 1990.

Returning to a relative’s home in Bay City, Mich., the new automobile I was driving was rear-ended by a young man in a large pickup. His attention had been diverted by his wife and children in a following car. It was daylight, the street was clearly posted 25 m.p.h. in a residential neighborhood. I had slowed, signaling to enter a driveway, but was struck with such force as to be pushed 15 to 20 feet to the next driveway. All involved parties had seat belts on, no one was “under the influence.”

Over $2,500 damages were sustained by my car; my brother and his wife were taken to the emergency hospital. Approximately $45 damage occurred to the pickup and there were no injuries. The pickup driver admitted to the investigating police that he was at fault. He was cited for three violations.

Because of Michigan’s no-fault system, my auto insurance paid for my auto damage and the uninsured portion of the emergency medical treatment of my brother and sister-in-law. Neither my relatives nor I are litigants or sought personal damages. However, apparently under Michigan’s system, your vehicle could be totaled, the other party clearly at fault, you maimed for life and you have no recourse except your insurance carrier.

God spare us such a system here in California.

DAVE SHERIDAN, Arcadia