If someone that had paid for no fault insurance coverage were to become involved in a car accident, then that policyholder’s insurance company would pay for all of the driver’s medical bills and lost earnings. The same policyholder/driver would make the needed claim through the purchased policy’s personal injury protection provision.
Key Components of a no-fault scheme
The person that has filed a claim, by using the personal injury protection provision cannot seek compensation for pain and suffering. If the total for the claimant’s medical bills reaches a specific level, then that same claimant has the right to pursue a serious legal action, such as a lawsuit.
In order to get compensated for damage to the hit vehicle, the policyholder has the right to submit a claim against the other driver. In that case, the other driver’s insurance company would have to cover the cost of any needed repairs.
Special rules that must be followed by a policyholder that has paid for no fault insurance coverage
The personal injury lawyer in Waterdown knows that the policyholder that has filed a claim by using the policy’s personal injury protection provision is obligated to cooperate with the insurer.After an accident, that required obligation could force a policyholder/driver to provide the insurance company with a recorded statement, giving the details about the accident.
Moreover, after an accident, that requirement could force a policyholder/driver to attend an independent medical exam, in order to obtain the desired compensation for any injuries.
Why were insurance companies allowed to make such demands on those that have purchased no-fault coverage?
Before creation of the no-fault option, a policyholder had almost no way to obtain compensation for injuries that had been caused by an uninsured driver. Indeed, the injured party had only one recourse, namely that of suing the insurance company.
Creation of the no-fault option freed insurance companies from dealing with that threat. Still, it forced insurers to cover the expenses associated with an accident that had been caused by an uninsured driver. Insurers agreed to offer the no-fault option, when the legal system granted the addition of the special rules/stipulations.
Insurance companies want to limit fraud on the part of claimants. Obviously, it would be difficult to make a fraudulent claim, if it specified that the accident had caused extremely bad injuries. Seldom could a claimant find a doctor that would agree to claim, falsely, the existence of such injuries.
Of course, the insurance companies wanted to be sure that such fraud did not take place. Hence, those same companies pushed for the added stipulation, the one that related to scheduling an IME. While those provisions seem intrusive, both of them give to holders of an auto insurance policy an added level of protection.