That doesn't really seem to be an issue with insurance per se. In a world without insurance, you could still have people refusing to pay even if it's "clearly" their fault.

It is a problem with the insurance, as it would be for anyone else. Shitty tactics are not exclusive to insurance, but that doesn't negate their actions, or the expectation that they should perform better.

> What do you call someone who victimizes people he know have a disadvantage in suing him?

A for-profit business.

Sure, unequal, wealth-gated practical access to the courts is a real problem, and it impacts basically every area of American society.

But it doesn't make mandatory auto liability insurance a scam, any more than it makes literally every commercial industry a scam.

The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam, not that the concept of requiring liability insurance is a scam.

Looking back, the original post's comment on that point was a final aside that was ambiguous. But my defense is of the charitable interpretation of that remark. Any auto liability insurance system should be written to avoid that kind of gaming.

>The claim I was defending was that the way auto liability insurance is done is a scam

Seems like it's working as intended? The purpose of auto liability insurance is to... insure the policyholder from liability. If you're not the policyholder, it's not working for you. If you're a policy and you're not experiencing losses stemming from your liability (ie. you crashed your own car), it's not covered. Others in this thread seem to think it's a general purpose mechanism for making all parties involved whole, which is a misunderstanding.

I thought I addressed exactly that in my original reply It’s not really working if and when once side is incentivized not to pay when they can and are obviously at fault.

Your comment is like saying “yeah that corporation used a natural pond as a toxic waste dump, so what? Corporations are supposed to make a profit, right?” Yes, they are … subject to other social desiderata like respecting others’ rights.

You seem to be attached to some bizarre strawman that the OP was expecting his own liability to cover the other party’s faults. That was never the argument.

> thought I addressed exactly that in my original reply It’s not really working if and when once side is incentivized not to pay when they can and are obviously at fault.

That's not auto insurance that's the underlying legal system, and it's not the feature of the underlying legal system that mandatory liability insurance exists to address.

The intent of mandatory liability insurance is to fix a specific problem: a liable party might not have the resources to pay even a moderate damage claim if found liable. That's what mandatory liability insurance exists to address. That is the whole intent.

If you want to fix the “problem” that people aren't incentivized to proactively pay expected liabilities even when there is a clear indication that the party to whom they would be owed is not willing to pursue them in court, well, you are certainly free to propose a solution, though I don’t expect that there is one that doesn't have more adverse effects than benefits. And, in any case, that's not what mandatory auto liability insurance is designed to address.

>It’s not really working if and when once side is incentivized not to pay when they can and are obviously at fault.

This seems to be based on the "making all parties whole" interpretation of insurance, rather than "protect the policyholder". Are you ignoring my prior comment entirely? Are you trying to argue that insurance companies ought to have a "making all parties whole" imperative rather than a "protect the policyholder" imperative? Or perhaps you take issue with insurance companies reneging on their obligations?

It seems like from the rest of your comment that you take issue with the latter, rather than the former. My response to that would be: I agree reneging on obligations in general is bad. However, even you seem to agree that there's some room for dispute, hence why answer was qualified with "obviously at fault". Other commenters have suggested somehow punishing insurance companies in cases where they're "obviously at fault" and refuse to pay up. However, the trouble then becomes, what counts as "obviously at fault"? I have not received a satisfactory answer for that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29720344.

> This seems to be based on the "making all parties whole" interpretation of insurance, rather than "protect the policyholder". Are you ignoring my prior comment entirely?

No, you’re ignoring the three comments I’ve made now that clearly indicated I was talking about “the structuring of the insurance system” (rather than the OP’s liability policy), and continuing to argue against something you should be aware I’m not endorsing.

And yes, making victims whole is the purpose of mandating liability coverage for drivers.

Can I ask what you think your comment is adding to the discussion that it didn’t have before?

> And yes, making victims whole is the purpose of mandating liability coverage for drivers.

Yes, agreed, but you aren't a victim until a court issues a judgement that you are, hence the other parties insurance has no reason nor obligation to make you whole.

A dispute is just a dispute until a court rules on it. Statements made by LEOs and witnesses are only examined when it is presented before a court. If you don't present your argument before a court, you are not automatically in the right.

It seems more like the poster was complaining that actually following through was hard and a pain in the ass, therefore the game is rigged.

Really it’s just they’re used to someone else doing all the hard work and don’t want to shell out or expend effort for when something doesn’t go smoothly.

Having dealt with contractors and others who decided doing what they were supposed too was clearly too hard (and then making them do it or deal with the consequences), it’s just how life is. Some people will make you make them, because most people are too busy or distracted to do it, and they usually get off Scott free.

It sucks, but it is what it is.

I don't know what you think you're adding to the conversation here. The point of the auto insurance system as mandated by governments, including the "required liability" part, is to rise a bit above (or a "smidge above" as you might say) this folksy "it is what it is" nihilism.

If no one pushes the button that is provided to do anything about it, what do they expect to happen?

The original comment seemed to be complaining that no one was pushing the button for them, and the other side wasn’t just doing something without them pushing the button.

Well duh.