Even though it is not extensively accepted by most states, some states restrict what an uninsured driver could claim from a guilty party after an accident. Simply drivers with no legal minimum policy may be limited from dipping into insurance pool for the similar damages they suffered in some states. Otherwise they would have to pay large deductibles before they can make any claim for the pain and suffering.
In theory it might make sense that if a motorist did not pay any insurance premium he should not be permitted to dip into the insurance funds. In reality these legislations might only escalate court cases under a few scenarios. By the way these restrains do not apply if the guilty party was intoxicated or runs away from the accident.
From that angle no fault state rules cut down litigations and accomplish the goal of not rewarding uninsured motorists since each driver insure their own pain and suffering. Hence these regulations stop awarding drivers with no coverage for pain and suffering already.
When an uninsured driver puts in a claim and gets paid the result would be hiked up rates for all the automobile insurance policyholders. That is perhaps the backbone of those regulations and it is an attempt to force most motorists purchase insurance coverage.
If we take time and consider it properly the whole thing might not be that fair. It might imply a blame authority rather than problem solving one. Namely, Actual issue of why motorists are not purchasing automobile insurance might be buried under avalanche of blames turned to motorists without insurance.
It can not be ignored that there is a link between the cost of automobile insurance and number of uninsured motorists. It seems that in costly automobile insurance zones the percentage of uninsured motorists is pretty high.
It seems a few good low income individuals become victim of suspect intermediaries while shopping to cut down premiums. Obviously some drivers do not earn enough to pay their entire household spending and allocate money for car insurance. It is most likely that they would have bought coverage if they were able to get cheap auto insurance in their area.
Be that as it may some people might deliberately avoid paying for liability policy because it only covers other people and not them. Scarcely anybody would even take this possibility as genuine grounds for not getting a policy. Hence exceptions never should affect any legislative choices.
Yet there is one undeniable defense for “no pay no play” rules. Basically insurance fund is received from policyholders. All the damages and losses faced and brought on by policyholders are settled from this pool. Effectively each driver has to join the pool before they commence driving and so they become members automatically. In that sense uninsured drivers have ignored to pay their contributions and they should be denied any access to money collected.
It is not at all unexpected that auto insurance companies would welcome such laws. Uninsured drivers would not be paid but would the rest get lower car insurance rates as a result?.