This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 27, 2011 10:33 PM. The previous post in this blog was Durant steps up to the second round. The next post in this blog is Japanese nukes in biggest disgrace so far. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Watch out for that Zipcar

Its driver isn't insured for all that much.

Comments (7)

Sounds like the odds are in their favor. My observation is having a lot more insurance just makes you a bigger target.

Belli was always happier when he found deep pockets.

Perhaps, dman, but IF the driver or others end up having to be in a nursing home for 50 years, with no money, we all pay one way or another for that care.

Don't get me started on this one. $300,000 is more than 10 times the current $25,000 state minimum in Oregon. Probably no more than 5% of the drivers on the road have more than 300K limits in Oregon. In my opinion the current state minimum is a product of the insurance lobby, and it should be raised to at least 100K or more. Also, if you have health insurance and it pays for your accident related medical bills, guess what? The health insurer has subrogation rights against that piddly policy covering the at fault driver and they have first dibs on the entire settlement, even if you can't work and have no disability insurance, etc. Your own auto policy has some no-fault wage and medical benefits but they are seriously inadequate in the event of a catastrophic accident. People are getting seriously injured in this state by underinsured drivers every day, and they often have no choice but Ch. 7 if they don't have adequate health insurance and their hospital bills run into the hundreds of thousands. Most of us don't realize how vulnerable we are in the event of a catastrophic injury caused by another everyday joe-blow underinsured driver. If you get in that major accident you better pray that it's a owned by a wealthy individual or major corporation.

I'm more worried about the uninsured within a certain demographic here in Oregon, than Zipcars with more coverage than most insured Oregonians.

I'd sure like to know why we have this wacko auto insurance setup where the insurance is tied to an automobile, but the insurance protects against the actions of its driver and not the vehicle itself.

Why isn't there automobile insurance reform so that DRIVER insurance is mandatory (which covers the DRIVER's actions, regardless of what vehicle he/she is driving), and AUTOMOBILE insurance (covers against loss/damage of the vehicle) is optional (although most banks that finance cars would require it)?

What "Eric H" said.

Clicky Web Analytics