Well, I am middle-aged with an excellent driving record, and my Mom is 81 with an excellent record. I insure both our cars for less than your rate for one car. I would be very unhappy if I had to pay a higher rate so that bad drivers can pay a lower rate. I don't think it will fly here either. Same with no-fault. blecccch. Good drivers have to pay high premiums with no fault. I write insurance in 40+ states, and the no-fault states have the highest premiums.
Another fine example on how NH could care less about it's residents: WE ARENT REQUIRED TO CARRY ANY INSURANCE!!!! The only "requirements" are the ones imposed by lenders that have the title for a vehicle. Once that loan is paid off though people are free to ditch their insurance. Great huh?
Whew! I am glad I live far from NH. I have more than enough underinsured motorist coverage though. Even though Louisiana has compulsory insurance laws, more than half the drivers have NO insurance. Thats scary considering most of the small percentage of insured drivers have the minimum (10/20).
I thought all states required you to carry auto insurance / Glad to see that there is at least one state that don't force you to participate in the forced insurance rip off.
Forced insurance "ripoff" eh? Well when you get into a car accident, without insurance, and make paralyze someone, and that someone has to repossess your house to pay their lifelong medical bills, you can cry about the forced insurance "ripoff" then.
It's not the principal of Liability Insurance I object to. My Gripe is the faulty method of implementation known as mandatory insurance laws. LB 59
1*forced Ins. was not enacted as a means to protect the policy holder it came in under the guise of protecting the wronged party. Two separate issues I might add. 2*As to protecting the wronged party forced insurance has failed miserably in addition to burdening folks with unfair demands and inequities. 3*Mandated insurance was crammed down the consumers throats without any provision requiring that insurers make good on claims. When insurers weasel out of paying claims forced insurance becomes nothing more than state enforced free donations to insurers. 4*Consumers were given no opportunity to object or offer their input about the required insurance issue prior to it being implemented. 5*forced insurance forces autos that aren'd being driven to be insured thus vastly increasing the cost one party pays for the same one car being driven. 6*About the only thing forced insurance has accomplished is driving up the cost to all insureds with little or no benefit to injured parties. When that someone has to repossess your house to pay their lifelong medical bills, you can cry about the forced insurance "rip-off" then. If I'm dumb enough to do that tough luck to me, but I don't need the government forcing me to protect me from myself. My sister in law was hit by an at fault drunk driver and incurred extensive medical expenses. Currently the guys insure is fighting paying the claim. If they are successful what good did it do for my sister in-law or the drunk to have this insurance policy? Forced insurance was the wrong attempt at fixing this problem. LB 59
