Talk:No-fault insurance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Incorrect material

Several sections of this article seem to be incorrect or uncited. Specifically, there are several websites listsing currently twelve states with some form of no-fault insurance, while the article lists only eight. This should probably be cross-referenced with other sources, and cited to determine factual accuracy. - (Malykyn, posted in public location) 207.63.238.4 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no need for them to prove that they were not at fault in the accident, or to prove another party was at fault in the accident." - I think this is outright incorrect, at least how no-fault insurance works in Ontario. Your insurance will still go up if you are legally found to be at fault so there is a vested interest in being legally found to be not at fault.

-- The article is correct - while you still may have a vested interest in being found "not at fault," your at-fault status does not affect whether or not you will be compensated for your losses in the accident. There is no need to prove the other party is at fault in order to COLLECT your insurance payment from your insurer. This is in contrast to traditional tort liability systems where your insurer pays other parties for damage you are legally liable for.

Law.com lists 19 states as having No Fault No Fault States

Major Changes

I added some cites, changed the initial definition and just generally cleared up some of the ambiguous language. This article still has a long ways to go, particularly re: international perspectives, but it's a start. I'll try to work a little more on it in the future. CredoFromStart 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto bias

No fault insurance has a larger basis - at least in Europe. Perhaps a page 'No-fault insurance' detailing the concept and then a specialist page for 'No-fault insurace: auto' - or 'No-fault insurance: auto-North America'. Or subsection... No-fault insurance in common in the European medical sector, I was hoping to link some comments from a medical article but this page is not really appropriate. I see CredoFromStart has noted a need for international perspectives: I would be grateful if consideration was also given for a broader handling of the topic. Revatim 12:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think everyone would welcome such expansion, we just need people with knowledge of the subject to come along. If you are able to add any specifics re Europe that would be great. — ¾-10 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, as far as I know, two countries have no-fault: Denmark and, well not really Europe, Israel. I have been involved as an expert in an Israelian court, therefore I know that. User:anonymous 10:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.77.49.142 (talk) [reply]

Pure no-fault in Manitoba

I have moved Manitoba to the "pure no-fault" category as per [1] Canjth (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced New York section

I've tagged the subsection describing a no-fault fraud crisis in New York. I'm not from New york, nor do i practice there, but it completely lacks references and sounds a bit POV.Full disclosure, i'm a Minnesota Personal injury lawyer, so have some of my own biasesTjoeC (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

California

Don't know how California snuck in there; it's a tort law state, not a no-fault state. See: [2], [3], [4]. --MCB (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware

For some reason, Wikipedia (like just about every other site that appears when you Google-search "no fault auto insurance states") omits Delaware. Delaware has a mandatory no-fault ("PIP") requirement of at least 15/30 in coverage, although deductibles can occasionally swallow the rule. Here's the statute: http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c021/sc01/index.shtml#2118 It's pure legalese but fantastic in practice (when the insurance companies don't try to screw over their insureds), so here's the DE Insurance Commissioner giving a highly simplistic explanation (see part 3 of the Basics: Personal Injury Protection): http://www.delawareinsurance.gov/auto/default.shtml#Basics 68.32.50.137 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)DE PI ESQ[reply]

New Zealand??

How can an article about no-fault accident insurance not mention New Zealand, the first jurisdiction to implement comprehensively a no-fault, tort-action-barring system which survives to this day and is often cited as a model for other jurisdictions intending tort reform to emulate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.187.94 (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]