If you do not have auto insurance but the other driver does and they are at fault will claims still be paid?
Question:
Answer:
They should. The responsible party did damage your property and should pay. You will be liable for not having insurance and will be fined for it. You might also be the one with the impounded vehicle while the accident is reviewed by authorities and your ¨no guilt¨is confirmed. but you are entitled for damage compensation.
You might have to fight for it, thought. More than one person has been denied payment using that as excuse.
Claims will be paid to the one with insurance.
usually in a situation like this they still ticket you because of no insurance,and there is a possibility that they may get out of paying for the damage also,, insurance company's are strange when it comes down to it that have a lot of loop holes and just make sure you don't fall through one of them,,good luck,i hope this help,.
Probably not.
Think about it, if you had no drivers license, and someone rear-ended you, do you really think the cops would be interested in pursuing the person that ran into with any degree of enthusiasm? We all have accidents from time to time. But you chose not buy insurance, which is probably an offense depending on where you live. In the places where it isn't an actual offense, I think that by doing so you are accepting responsibility for any accident, even if it wasn't your 'fault'.
probably but ins. is mandatory not optional I bet you got a ticket too
vincent c( probably but ins. is mandatory not optional I bet you got a ticket too)
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Einstein
DRIVERS LICENSE VS RIGHT TO TRAVEL
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Sure. The at fault party's ins. co. pays the damages, except for medical expenses in no-fault states.
More Questions & Answers...