Reply With QuoteHow does that work?Originally Posted by mrblanche
I assume motorcycles in NY must have license plates, be registered and insured and pass state inspection just like cars....?
Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?
How does that work?
I assume motorcycles in NY must have license plates, be registered and insured and pass state inspection just like cars....?
I'll just have to wait to hear from John. Sounds like typical insurance-company legalese.
I think that's a mistake.
In this case, no-fault basically means that the carrier will pay medicals and wage loss for the driver and occupants of the vehicle it insures regardless of fault (if there is a third party at fault, they may get it back). The insurance companies (or somebody) did not want to take on the risk of no-fault medical costs of bikers. As they say on TV: And there's much, much more ...
A lot of people fall off bikes for one reason or the next (or no reason at all) and there is no negligent third party to pay the medicals. I don't believe that the biker is precluded from an action for damages if there is a negligent third party.
It all may have changed but that's what I think I remember.
If that's not clear, ask and I'll try again.
This guy says he's been stiffed all around, and he has a lawyer filing a civil suit for damages against the young lady who ran into him and was admittedly at fault.
I think this link will take you to the whole sordid story.
http://www.kawasakimotorcycle.org/fo...but-im-ok.html
I know nothing of the negligence trade, either, but it sounds about right to me. 'Lycos' does not understand the concept of no-fault and the other insurance company may have been jerking him around but both of those are perfectly normal situations. He has a lawyer which is what he needs.
If I run into you and am at fault, whether you are in your truck, in the Cobalt, on a bike or simply a pedestrian, my no-fault coverage will do nothing for you.
Why doesn't he have no-fault coverage? And isn't her liability insurance responsible for his expenses?
I think his lack of no-fault has to do with the fact that bike insurance does not include it.
She (her insurance) should should be responsible for his expenses and, maybe, any 'specials.' ('Specials' have to do with intangibles such as 'pain and suffering,' 'loss of consortium,' etc.)
I'm not trying to be obtuse, my knowledge of this stuff is really limited. What was once relatively simple has become very complex.
I'mm not in New York and I don't live in a no-fault state, but if you were a pedestrian who didn't own a car (there are several million people like that in NYC alone), you can sue them. Ownership of a motorcycle doesn't keep you from suing someone else, I bet--and if motorcycles are not covered by the no-fault insurance law, that means that you have to sue the other person, your own insurance isn't no-fault. Or so I would think.
You think right!I'mm not in New York and I don't live in a no-fault case, but if you were a pedestrian who didn't own a car (there are several million people like that in NYC alone), you can sue them. Ownership of a motorcycle doesn't keep you from suing someone else, I bet--and if motorcycles are not covered by the no-fault insurance law, that means that you have to sue the other person, your own insurance isn't no-fault. Or so I would think.
"Hey, JDM, are you acquainted with the section of New Yorks no-fault law that says that motorcycles are not "motor vehicles," so if someone hits you with their car, they don't have to pay for your damages?"
No-fault insurance simply means your own insurance company pays for the damages. That way the insurance company doesn't have to waste time with whose fault each accident is.
CA voted it down several years ago. But I don't think it would have been a big deal if it passed or not.
-Don-
There's a little more to it - with no-fault there are no awards for 'pain and suffering,' which can be far more than a couple of band aids. In NY, there was once a threshold of $500 in medicals before one could sue but that was a joke, anyone can run up $500 in medical costs. Now the threshold is much higher and subjective, not a number.
Today, in the NYC area, the insurance fraud is in the no-fault area with fake injuries being treated at crooked clinics which overbill and pay kickbacks.
"There's a little more to it -"
There's insurance fraud either way, so I don't understand why there's a big difference. With no-fault, can't one sue their own insurance company if you don't believe they are paying you enough for your injuries?
The insurance companies paid big bucks trying to get no-fault to pass in CA. But it still failed, and failed by a large margin so now nobody even talks about it much. IIRC, I voted against it too, but I don't remember my reasons. It was many years ago, perhaps about 20 or so, that we voted on the issue here in CA.
-Don-
Anywhere there is money, there is fraud.
More later but I do think that CA is right in rejecting the no-fault concept.
"No-fault" was an attempt at reducing huge claims for damages when personal injury was involved in automobile accidents. An example is the rear-ender, where the party who has been hit has some whiplash. He or she incurs possibly $2,000 in medical bills, walks around in a foam collar, and sues for $5 million for "pain and suffering". Another example might be the person who has incurred some severe injury, and discovers that to recover all of his medical bills, he needs to sue for double the amount that he would be satisfied with, as his lawyer will gat 50% of the award when it is settled.
Anyway, no-fault usually prohibits tort lawsuits for pain and suffering until a certain threshhold of medical expenses is reached. Of course, this gives rise to inflated medical expenses, in an attempt to reach the threshold to permit tort lawsuits.
No one can figure out how to handle the frauds, however, or even how to tell the frands from the people who really have suffered severe ijury that gives no visible indication of its existence. They end up in court, and he who has the best lawyer usually wins.
Posting Permissions