This is default featured slide 1 title
This is default featured slide 2 title
This is default featured slide 3 title
This is default featured slide 4 title
This is default featured slide 5 title
 

California Car insurance Rates from Caautoinsurancequotes.net – Save 75%

california car insurance quotesThe development of the 1971 legislation didn’t end discussion about an even more extensive no-fault for car insurance Ontario. Indeed, in those days an insurance industry spokesman was quoted as saying that it was viewed as merely a initial step. Find auto insurance in California at www.caautoinsurancequotes.net.

The next important development was the publication in 1973 of a report through the Ontario Law Reform Commission on car accident compensation.  The empirical base for the report was information gathered in other studies; the Osgoode Hall study,  a University of Michigan study,  the British Columbia Royal Commission on Automobile Insurance  and an Oxford University study.
The findings from the Osgoode Halls study happen to be described previously. In broad terms these confirmed or were confirmed by the other studies. Compensation flowing in the tort system was shown to be inadequate, poorly distributed and subject often to serious delay. Further, noting the widespread use of insurance, the Law Reform Commission noticed that loss distribution, instead of loss shifting, had become the “normal method” of compensating accident victims and therefore:

The question no more is whether or not individual defendants can afford to deal with all the losses they inflict, but whether the collectivity engaged in the activity which generates the injury, and in the situation of motoring this virtually means society in particular, can afford to bear it. In light of the huge amounts allocated to motoring already, an adverse answer would seem perverse.
 
That society had chosen to spread losses (by the widespread use and legal encouragement  of liability insurance) instead of saddle individual wrongdoers together, resulted in the historical reason for tort law (to create blameworthy individuals liable) was no longer being pursued. This, together with the fact that those aspects of tort which had been retained led to inequities, inadequacies and delays in the processing of’ claims, fueled the argument for that complete abolition of tort as it applied to automobile accident cases. Learn more about California here

The Law Reform Commission indicated a definite preference for any first-party, no-fault compensation system. It proposed a “pure” no- fault plan which would compensate automobile accident victims for those pecuniary losses caused by injury, death or damage to property arising from the operation of the automobile. Non-pecuniary loss wouldn’t be compensated, but all other losses, specifically (a) unlimited medical, hospital and rehabilitation expenses, (b) other consequential expenses such as transportation costs and telephone bills, (c) damages, (d) death benefits, and (e) compensation for collision and damage to property, would be compensated.