> JJ wrote: > Even in a nofault state, if you are not at fault, your insurance company > will go after their insurance company to be reimbursed.
Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of no-fault which is to get rid of legal cost? I thought the whole theory was that sooner or later you're going to get into an accident so when you do there's no question of who pays - your insurance company. The theory goes, if you're getting hit a lot then you're just as poor of a driver than if you're hitting people. So anyway, I thought no-fault meant that: it's nobody's fault so each company pays for the damages to their client. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:289413 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
