No-fault car insurance, yea or nay?

Florida and Michigan have the most expensive car insurance due to no-fault insurance.

Quote:

No-fault insurance premiums and deductibles are your financial responsibility — even when you didn't cause the accident. No-fault states limit lawsuits from car accidents. At-fault car insurance states don't limit lawsuits.

Nay.

Big nay.

I've decided (until I hear otherwise) that I'm against it. Because it is much easier to find blame on one party. Whereas, in health insurance, although sometimes it's easy to find blame the amount of murky case load would be almost unbearable, IMO, trying figure it out. Did your cancer really come from that chemical in a plant, your heredity or your own malfeasance? I'd just as soon spread the cost around there.

The advantage of no-fault is that in the event of a physical injury, your insurance pays the medical provider, instead of you. Prior to no-fault, an injured person would have to pay medical costs out of pocket, which in many cases would bankrupt the average person.

If they were not at fault for the accident, the injured party or their insurer, would have to sue the other party for reimbursement. More often than not, that person would be broke, underinsured, and unable to pay the reimbursement.

On the flip side, if the injured party caused the accident, they would be on the hook for their own medical expenses.

No-fault covers the insured for medical expenses to a limit, no matter who was at fault.

The insurance company can seek reimbursement of their costs from the other party's insurance company through subrogation.