Passinger in accident

[John Rowell]

I live in Florida and yesterday my son was a passinger in a car that was involved in a three car accident. I think no one was charged. We wanted our son to get checked out by our chiropractor to make sure there was no whiplash. When we contacted the parents of the driver for insurance info they said our auto insurance would cover him because Florida is a No-Fault state. Can this be right? Thanks

 

[Juan Rodriguez]

Yes. Read your policy. Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage in Florida is your "No Fault" coverage. You need to file a claim with your carrier to cover the medical and chiropractic bills.

PIP coverage is granted to persons in lieu of their tort rights (right to recover 3rd party bodily injury), and payable regardless of fault. Under Florida law tort rights are retained when the recovery "threshold" is exceeded. Tort rights for recovery of intangible loss (including pain and suffering) are preserved when certain PERMANENT injuries are incured or the injured person dies as a result of the accident. If you do not exceed the tort threshold you can still recover for your out of pocket expenses. Namely, what ever portions of the bills fall under the deductable and the 20% not covered by PIP.

PIP pays, 80% of medical and related expenses; 60% of lost income or earning capacity and a $5,000.00 death benefit.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

When you finally find out what "No-Fault" auto insurance will do to your son, you'll think he's been in two accidents.

Just wait.

Then, when it comes up on the Ballot again, you'll make sure to vote against it. It was a scam by insurance companies - - and now, you're going to find out the affects of just what those lying insurance companies pulled on the voters.

IAAL

 

[Juan Rodriguez]

To IAAL:

You will be happy to learn that the law is being revamped.

The actual intent of the original Florida "No-Fault" law was to reduce the amount of law suits for minor accidents. In the 1st test case for No-Fault the Fla. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the tort exemption, saying in part:

"In exchange for the loss of a former right to recover (upon proving the other party to be at fault) for pain and suffering, etc., in cases where the thresholds of the statute are not met, the injured party is assured a speedy payment of his medical bills and compensation for lost income from his own insurer, even where the party was at fault. Additionally, he can recover for such expenses which are in excess of his policy limits by the traditional tort action, and may recover for tangible damage by means of such suit..."

The law has never quite worked because it was a compromise between "pure" no-fault and the traditional tort system. In the end the planitiff's bar found a way around the law and PIP suits became a huge money maker for lawyers. If the plaintiff wins a PIP suit against the insurer and the case was deemed difficult they can be awarded up to 3X their fees and cost.