but it always sounded like a good idea to me. the lawyers who make big money suing , and defending, insurance companies, must hate no fault insurance.

because the PIP coverage didn't have any limits. The insurance company that I worked for had four PIP claims that were reserved at $9,999,999 (the maximum that could be set in the computer system). The first time I saw those reserves it raised my eyebrows.

Among the disadvantages of a no-fault system is that it can place the policyholder in an adversarial role with their insurer for negotiating in bad faith. There are no repercussions for egregious actions as found in an at-fault system where the injured parties can sue for exemplary damages. There is also no telling how many policyholders were offered lowball settlement. While I'm not certain, I believe that noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) are also severely limited.

I'm not too concerned about the lawyers. Each system has its own opportunities for lawyers to pursue to generate income.

The fraud claim used as a pretext to get rid of no fault is just boiler plate imo. Insurance adjusters and their lawyers and doctors almost always say, "he doesn't look injured to me," or "that's an old injury." Who bothers to file a fraudulent medical claim for acute treatment? Chiropractors? Physical therapists?

A large number of Florida drivers are uninsured at any one time, or carrying the minimum coverage. We'll see what alternatives the insurers provide to their policy holders other than having to file a lawsuit to get damages of any kind. It looks like there is a medical payments option.

I'm not a lawyer. This is not intended as legal advice, just casual observation. Anytime repukes suggest changing the insurance rules, I'm suspicious. Insurance companies pretty much control the state government. They saved money with no fault until they didn't. I'm sure many judges got sick of their petty PIP suits taking up valuable court time and burned them when they refuse to settle. No one wants to take up court time with a ten grand or less lawsuit. except an insurer.

Is a beneficiary in anything but an adversarial relationship with an insurer when they submit a claim? It's the nature of the beast. Open to hear other opinions on this though, because I haven't observed any auto claims in a long time. We'll see how this turns out. I'm sure the premiums will go up and the barriers to claims will be greater.

But I was actually in favor of this because we carry a huge amount of auto insurance Protections in case we would hurt someone and they would need medical care. Hopefully, it will reduce our rates because we pay a lot.

We have a friend who was hurt badly a few years ago. Someone ran a red light and totaled his vehicle and he ended up with a huge hospital bill and some rehab. At first they weren't sure he was even going to live. He got a whopping $10,000 from the other person's insurance policy and she owned nothing so there was nothing more to get from the person at fault. He got an attorney, who advised him to just collect on his own plan and I even asked him if his premiums will go up and he said his attorney assured him they won't. Well, guess what happened. Even though he wasn't at fault, his insurance went up even higher than it previously was.

I am familiar with this type of insurance and it more evenly distributes cost burdens. I guess we will wait and see what happens.