> 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.
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.