Car Insurance Initiatives on the November Ballot
- Share via
Regarding Jeffrey O’Connell’s column “No Fault Auto Insurance: Simple and Fair” (Op-Ed Page, Sept. 21), it is easy to see why O’Connell feels the “no-fault” solution is simplicity itself. Several of the author’s basic assumptions are simply oversimplified and not based on reality, at least not in California.
The author assumes that under a no-fault system, insurance companies will simply pay the claimant-insured for the covered loss. Unfortunately, sometimes insurance companies only pay when they are sued.
The insurance companies are big business, making big profits. My experience is that they routinely deny or underpay claims whenever they can find a reason not to pay.
As the author clearly points out, many no-fault laws in different states have not worked.
Like the lucrative gambling industry, insurance companies are like bookies who bet against you with your own money. Under no-fault, the rules of the game will be entirely in favor of the house; they alone decide who should be paid, how much, and when.
LEONARD MATSUK
Long Beach
Inside the business of entertainment
The Wide Shot brings you news, analysis and insights on everything from streaming wars to production — and what it all means for the future.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
