PT111 wrote:
yes if i were to cause damages without insurance I would still be liable even if i did not carry liability insurance.
BS on that. My mother was hit head on by a driver while stopped on her side of the roadwith no way to avoid him. Hehad no insurance, no property and no way to pay the hospital bills that myfamily incurred due to it. My grandmother's hip was broken and for six weeks after she had to stay in the bed while we paid someone to look after her.
That's a terrible thing to go through, but I have to point out that if the other driver had the state-required minimum amount of insurance, it would have been used up within the first week.
Most states' minimum insurance (which is what most drivers carry) is for a
maximum bodily injury payment of $20,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. With today's prices, that can be gone in just one day.
A friend died after a motorcycle accident this past summer (it was the car driver's fault). He spent 9 hours at the local emergency room before being flown to Dallas, then passed away after 6 days at Parkland.
When his widow got the final bill for the emergency room, it was for $67,203.43. That's for
nine hours! Texas requires 20/40 coverage, so the insurance didn't even cover the first three hours of emergency care. So, you should really keep that in mind when talking about liability insurance.
Now, let me add that trying to stereotype FreeStaters is about like trying to stereotype gun owners. You just can't do it, and anyone trying just looks foolish. The vast majority of those I've met and talked to aren't radical at all. They have driver's licenses and passports and pay income taxes. They register their cars and maintain insurance, for the same reason they wear seatbelts: even though the law doesn't require either in NH, it's a darn good idea.
:
