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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.