The 17 victims of the Hingham Apple Store crash might have to share a $40,000 insurance payout.

Submitted by il_biciclista t3_z29nlw in boston

I don’t know how much auto insurance the driver actually carried, but the minimum requirement in Massachusetts is that insurance covers “$20,000 per person and $40,000 if more than one person is hurt.”. In a case like this, where 17 people are hit, that’s less than $2,400 per victim, which will barely make a dent in the hospital bill for someone who just got hit by a car. 

I think Massachusetts should greatly increase this minimum. It will slightly increase the cost of driving, but vastly decrease the cost of getting run over, which seems like a worthwhile tradeoff. 

For context, Maine requires coverage of $50,000 for one victim or $100,000 for multiple victims. It looks like the average driver in Maine pays less than $3,000 per year for auto insurance.

90

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

fauxpublica t1_ixfnmi3 wrote

Bollards. No bollards in front of the store. That mall has millions of dollars in coverage. There is plenty of available insurance. And the Apple Store facade. Is that reasonable to just have a sheet of glass that close to the parking lot intersection? I defended this same case in Cambridge a decade or more ago at a coffee shop. Had to look at 100s of pictures of bollards at mediation with an excellent plaintiff’s attorney. There is loads of available coverage. But you’re correct about the auto limits. The minimums are much too low.

221

il_biciclista OP t1_ixfodjc wrote

100%! We need more bollards in more places.

52

Conan776 t1_ixg29cy wrote

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

26

Azr431 t1_ixhfj5e wrote

More bollards fewer cars. Cars ruin everything

18

Tempest_1 t1_ixhmf19 wrote

Bollards for US president! He will stop all the cars!

10

fakecrimesleep t1_ixhm03a wrote

It’s hingham. Car dependent af hingham. You’re never gonna change that without NIMBY opposition

2

SleaterKenny t1_ixi2wa1 wrote

Fewer bollards AND fewer cars is the right answer. Bollards are ugly.

−2

Azr431 t1_ixje36d wrote

Check out @worldbollardassociation on Twitter for bollard awesomeness! 😄

6

SleaterKenny t1_ixjnk6j wrote

LOL the bollard lobby has apparently found this post. -14 as I type. Seriously, people think bollards are good? I mean, I get why they're necessary sometimes, but they are still a blight.

0

tacknosaddle t1_ixgt93z wrote

The general rule of thumb that the victims' lawyer(s) will use is to identify the "deep pockets" that are potentially liable in a lawsuit. I think it's a safe bet that the Apple Store/Company and the mall are going to have deeper pocket than the insurance policy of the guy that drove through it.

46

NoMoLerking t1_ixfub43 wrote

I thought it was so odd they have planted shrubs at the curb. Many years ago I was having lunch outside when I heard a crash. Turned around to see a car perched up on a cement planter. If it had been shrubs I’d have been dead for sure.

26

1000thusername t1_ixfulf8 wrote

Yeah the mall is a possible lawsuit target. I heard the news saying the state had been promoting these bollards too, so if there’s any documentation indicating a conscious choice not to install them, then watch out.

Someone lower down said they’d sue Apple. I disagree with Apple specifically because they don’t control the parking lot or structure overall, but the mall is quite possible, yes.

22

some1saveusnow t1_ixg6va7 wrote

Where was the coffee shop, out of curiosity?

2

fauxpublica t1_ixgr5mp wrote

Porter, in the mall with the supermarket. An elderly woman driving her son’s suv stepped on the gas instead of the brake and drove right into the place.

6

psychicsword t1_ixiug62 wrote

> But you’re correct about the auto limits. The minimums are much too low.

It is also possible that the under covered driver insurance add on of the victim's auto insurance will cover them as well.

I ran into the low coverage limit for bodily harm after being hit and I got another 15k from my own insurance.

1

Pleasant_Influence14 t1_ixjhu8g wrote

Cafe zing? I was there that day.

1

fauxpublica t1_ixjuxqs wrote

I don’t remember the name. The owners were excellent, compassionate people and the accident had absolutely nothing to do with the coffee shop, except that she drove into it. She was actually shopping somewhere else. They leased the commercial space from a realty trust which was the true defendant. I can’t recall the name of the coffee shop, just the location.

1

Pleasant_Influence14 t1_ixnz71j wrote

It’s cafe zing at porter square books. I went by that day and luckily no one was killed or hurt too badly.

1

fauxpublica t1_ixnzbxh wrote

That must have been terrifying. Are the bollards at that mall now?

1

Pleasant_Influence14 t1_ixuf0r9 wrote

Yes they are. I wasn’t in the bookstore when it happened but arrived meaning to get a coffee and scone a little while after it had happened.

1

wsdog t1_ixg4rvl wrote

They look ugly as hell. This incident is a tragedy, but a very rare tragedy to spoil any sort of architecture everywhere.

−34

alohadave t1_ixhhsq1 wrote

Oh, well if they are ugly, then that's okay. Fuck people, we need pretty hardscaping at shopping malls.

11

wsdog t1_ixhj4j3 wrote

You cannot place ballards everywhere a car can hit a person, c'mon.

−3

alohadave t1_ixhjd2q wrote

You can put them in front of fucking plate glass storefronts in a parking lot.

11

wsdog t1_ixhl6q1 wrote

You really think a car can hit somebody ONLY at a glass storefront. No other location is actually possible.

Why not put bollards everywhere in front of every single structure?

−4

alohadave t1_ixhm88c wrote

Jesus, are you really willing to die on this hill?

You are the only one complaining about putting bollards everywhere. In this case, in a shopping mall, bollards are appropriate, and would have saved life and limb, literally.

8

wsdog t1_ixhmirj wrote

No, alright you're good, I agree. Spend money on bollards instead of checking drivers who can induce harm. Maybe it's a better solution.

−3

techiemikey t1_ixhtloz wrote

This is a case of "you can only control what you are capable of controling". The property owners could have placed ballards for protection (and even done something like planters to prevent it from being ugly). The business could choose something other than a glass front, as they are allowed to make changes.

What could they have done about drivers specifically? The only people who could have is the government, who can't place the ballards.

4

il_biciclista OP t1_ixgsnjq wrote

There's nothing rare about people being killed by cars. It happens every day in this country.

8

dante50 t1_ixhnrw1 wrote

Yes, the classic “architecture” of an outdoor mall where an Apple Store is wedged between a Barnes & Noble an Anthropologie. I mean, famous landmarks across the globe deploy bollards for safety, but let’s not spoil ‘Merica’s suburban parking lot malls!

7

wsdog t1_ixho9gz wrote

Very true, cannot agree more. Museums cover paintings with glass because of a couple of idiots with glue and soup.

A tiny fraction of idiots always ruin the lives of everybody else. My point that the idiots should be targeted, not everyone else.

And Apple stores have decent architecture.

1

BillMurraysTesticle t1_ixhk7x4 wrote

Imagine being AGAINST bollards but FOR 17 people being injured in a preventable accident.

6

wsdog t1_ixhkk57 wrote

You cannot go back in time and install bollards at this particular location preventing this particular incident. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

−3

BillMurraysTesticle t1_ixhkx37 wrote

Nice strawman. That's not even close to what my comment was getting at. I'm saying that you're valuing "pretty architecture" over public health and that's ridiculous.

5

wsdog t1_ixhle0w wrote

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that bollards do nothing good and do harm. As any other security theater does.

0

techiemikey t1_ixhttfl wrote

Bollards aren't security theater. They provide safety. And the "harm" you proposed is "they don't look pretty"

6

amish_hacker473 t1_ixfdese wrote

All 17 of these people are going to sue the driver. They'll get more money out of that than insurance.

104

1000thusername t1_ixfezl2 wrote

That assumes the person responsible actually has any money to take, though.

Even wage garnishments x17 might net them $12.43 a month for 50 years because they won’t garnish wages below a certain point - they will set aside a “living wage” type amount from any salary before allowing for garnishment, and then that has to be divided up amongst them.

And that’s if the guy doesn’t go to jail and have no wages to garnish or go underground working under the table like many deadbeat parents and other lawsuit losing defendants do so their wages can’t be garnished.

It’s a horrible reality for these people that they aren’t likely to get shit.

48

hce692 t1_ixg52go wrote

You don’t sue the individual. It’s going to be their insurance company suing his, especially if they need long/short term disability and a personal injury lawyer representing any of the victims would be suing their insurance and undoubtedly Apple plus the shopping center ownership

12

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixgfoss wrote

The drivers insurance is only responsible for what their policy holder has in coverage and not a penny more. This is why some people carry umbrella insurance. Victims can sue the driver and whoever else might pay, apple, derby street management - it’ll all depend on what you can win in court and someone’s ability to actually pay.

19

[deleted] t1_ixftvme wrote

[deleted]

6

1000thusername t1_ixfuefa wrote

Apple isn’t responsible. That does mean they won’t try to shake them down, but they’re not responsible.

14

hce692 t1_ixg4xm7 wrote

Apple could absolutely be sued. All safety laws exist because someone died and was sued for it. Especially in a town like hingham where people can afford lawyers, I have no doubt an argument could be made about the negligence of entirely glass walls

11

techiemikey t1_ixhu9xb wrote

> All safety laws exist because someone died and was sued for it.

I disagree with "and was sued for it." The "sued and won" is usually a "this was brought up to them as an issue before and they decided to not to address an issue". But safety laws exist because people died and we realized "hey...we shoud fix that.

−1

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixgfx97 wrote

I’d argue that having an add glass store front where cars can easily drive through makes apple responsible. I understand it looks modern and well designed but of they had a half wall or more support beams maybe the far wouldn’t have been able to kill someone and hurt so many people. I’m not lawyer but that would be my argument. No idea if that would even work.

0

rockdude t1_ixhtjrx wrote

Apple should be responsible for providing coverage for any an all Med expenses

0

BasilExposition75 t1_ixfnu7q wrote

They are going to sue Apple. It is a $3 trillion company. They will pay huge sums of money to keep it hush hush.

11

therealcmj t1_ixfu8k1 wrote

They will sue Apple because that’s what you have to do. Apple’s insurer will sue the retail space’s owner. Their insurance will sue etc etc etc.

25

and_dont_blink t1_ixg5ckw wrote

Keep what hush-hush? It's kind of already in the news.

Apple's insurance will cover damages to the building if they choose to exercise it and workers compensation will cover any employees, but anyone else is on their own unless they can prove negligence on Apple's part. While they might get added to a lawsuit, and might offer to settle if it's less than the legal fees to go to court, it's so cut-and-dry it'll likely be tossed before it's even at that point.

11

Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ixi7ns0 wrote

Apple has a ton of lawyers who will deal with any lawsuits. It's literally not even something they are worried about. Apple gets sued almost daily.

1

wsdog t1_ixg53di wrote

3k on car insurance lol sorry what? I send way less for 2 cars and way more than the minimum required in Maine.

24

bbhlcd t1_ixg6nho wrote

Very very weird of you to use this insanely recent tragedy to harp on your 7 mo+ vendetta against Massachusetts insurance minimums

22

UsernameTaken93456 t1_ixhb5fw wrote

Not really. If he's spent 7 months saying, "hey guys this is a problem" why wouldn't he point it out when it actually gets some airtime?

23

dpm25 t1_ixhdyxa wrote

How is it strange?

It is absolutely relevant to a predicable incident like this.

13

Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ixi88gz wrote

No it's not. This is a very expensive incident. Even an umbrella policy couldn't afford to pay out all these claims.

2

dpm25 t1_ixiaspq wrote

And a 40k policy cant even cover one person.

3

bigditka t1_ixfzaso wrote

Gotta find the deep pockets - Apple and the Derby Street Shops.

20

gustavpentel t1_ixhr75j wrote

Dont forget Toyota. There is a very well established issue with unintended wide open throttle on Toyotas. This would be - at the absolute minimum - the 94th person killed by this since the issue was discovered.

2

1000thusername t1_ixfdgxi wrote

I fully agree that the Massachusetts minimum insurance limits are absolute GARBAGE.

When we are also in our vehicles, we can choose for high limit “underinsured/uninsured driver” options on our insurance, but if you’re a pedestrian or cyclist or caught up in something like this?? The whole system falls apart.

19

lefty557 t1_ixfgw7n wrote

Your own under insurance limit applies if you are struck while a pedestrian or on a bike. You can make the claim.

12

il_biciclista OP t1_ixfh62n wrote

That's great if you have insurance.

8

1000thusername t1_ixfj1e8 wrote

Agree. The random non-car owner? Fucked.

15

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixg014g wrote

What, like how are people forgetting about HEALTH INSURANCE?

6

il_biciclista OP t1_ixgr648 wrote

Some people don't have health insurance. Many people have to pay a lot of money out-of-pocket despite having health insurance.

2

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixhtpch wrote

Some people, many people. Without knowing you're assuming everyone there is uninsured or has cheap health insurance. The world is not made up entirely of people who are disadvantaged financially. This is a tragedy, not everything has to be turned into a crusade for you to take action. Worry about their health first not their finances. I would be insulted if a friend heard I was injured and the first thing they thought about was how I was going to afford it and not asked me about how I am actually feeling physically.

−3

1000thusername t1_ixiay17 wrote

I’m sure those close to the victims are doing that. We who do not k ow anyone involved can take a more clinical and critical look at what the big picture means for these people and how could this be prevented from happening to others (not only the physical act of the car hitting them but also the structural issues that will leave the survivors’ lives in a shambles and possibly advocate for change - change that could help them as well as change that could help others in the future).

OF COURSE we wish them well with their health.

2

il_biciclista OP t1_ixj0uzh wrote

>Some people, many people. Without knowing you're assuming everyone there is uninsured or has cheap health insurance. The world is not made up entirely of people who are disadvantaged financially. 

I’m not assuming that every single person in that store was poor. I’m suggesting that the financial burden should lie with the driver’s insurance, rather than the victims. If you get run over by a car, it shouldn’t matter how rich you are, or how rich the driver is. 

>This is a tragedy, not everything has to be turned into a crusade for you to take action. Worry about their health first not their finances. I would be insulted if a friend heard I was injured and the first thing they thought about was how I was going to afford it and not asked me about how I am actually feeling physically.

I am worried about their health, but at this point, nothing can be done to change the fact that they just got run over by a car. My thoughts and prayers aren’t going to help them. Money might. They could have expensive medical bills, and could be missing a lot of work. 

2

1000thusername t1_ixh931y wrote

Even with… some of the high deductible or catastrophic-only plans have thousands upon thousands of OOP per year. Given that it’s the end of the year, someone with “mangled limbs and amputations” as they described some will get tucked with thousands times TWO very quickly. Even that is enough to destroy a family, let alone some having an inability to work for a long time and maybe never again if they were in a physically demanding field (day construction or similar) that can’t be done with one leg/arm or no legs/arms. For many even a $10k outlay for copays and such would destroy them.

2

wsdog t1_ixg5b9t wrote

Pay your health insurance deductible, then it's your insurance's problem.

1

modernhomeowner t1_ixfi4m4 wrote

Yes, and get an umbrella with Under/uninsured coverage! That will get you $1M or more. There are too many ill-insured driver's out there.

6

il_biciclista OP t1_ixfm13i wrote

That's what I have, because I'm fortunate enough to afford it. If you're less fortunate, the options might be medical debt or bankruptcy.

4

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixggtma wrote

I’ve seen the saying that some people are lawsuit proof. You can win a million dollar lawsuit against someone but it doesn’t mean you will actually collect a dime. I’ve also heard (would love a personal injury attorney to chime in) that the first thing lawyers do is look people up in Lexis nexus for insurance information along with an asset search. So having good insurance and umbrella insurance will actually increase your chance of a lawsuit. I’d personally still have it because I own my home and have some assets.

1

hamakabi t1_ixhc1zh wrote

funny, I had this same thought about your suggestion that I pay for twice as much insurance coverage just because some other douchebags can't drive and it makes you personally offended.

0

il_biciclista OP t1_ixhd6ct wrote

>funny, I had this same thought about your suggestion that I pay for twice as much insurance coverage just because some other douchebags can't drive and it makes you personally offended.

To be clear: I'm not personally offended that some douchebags can't drive. I'm personally offended that 17 people just got run over by a car, and are likely going to be stuck with large medical bills and little help paying them. I'm personally offended that this happens literally every day in this country.

2

[deleted] t1_ixgsl18 wrote

[deleted]

1

modernhomeowner t1_ixh8elo wrote

Auto and homeowners. A renters policy is a form of homeowners coverage. Even way back when I lived with my parents, I bought a renters policy so I could have an umbrella.

1

Conan776 t1_ixffjnw wrote

Ever heard the expression "bad cases make bad law"?

Maybe as an addendum we could add: "freak accidents make for bad insurance coverage examples."

14

il_biciclista OP t1_ixfhyea wrote

Cars kill people every day. It's disingenuous to call this a freak accident.

8

wsdog t1_ixg5ki8 wrote

There were 71 pedestrian car crashes in 2021 in MA. Not every day. And not all driver fault.

3

CHARLIE_CANT_READ t1_ixh8dki wrote

To play devil's advocate truly freak accidents have a negligible impact on total claims paid so requiring them to be covered should barely increase rates.

3

il_biciclista OP t1_ixhde3a wrote

Yes. Thank you. The purpose of insurance is to pay for freak accidents by spreading the cost among people who might be responsible for such accidents in the future.

1

Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ixi7wiw wrote

No one could afford insurance that would fully cover a claim like this and no insurer would write a policy that had limits that high. It's a pointless thought exercise to even argue about this.

1

[deleted] t1_ixfvzdq wrote

[removed]

10

This-Dimension-8427 t1_ixfw49h wrote

And by do this work I mean personal injury and premises liability.

7

aslander t1_ixgzcav wrote

And by personal injury and premises liability, I mean mafia

1

UsernameTaken93456 t1_ixhayhg wrote

STILL???

20 years ago, the drunk who hit me and took off only had $20k of insurance and I spent that before I woke up in tht hospital.

10

il_biciclista OP t1_ixhdlff wrote

Yes. Still.

There is nothing in the law that indexes this for inflation. If the state house doesn't make any changes, then it will continue to be $20,000 indefinitely, regardless of how much medical costs increase.

3

artificial_bluebird t1_ixi28vk wrote

Sorry that happened to you. I'm trying to understand the system better, could you maybe share what costs were and were not covered of this incident by your accident or medical insurances?

2

UsernameTaken93456 t1_ixi980x wrote

Sure.

So this was 20 years ago and I didn't have medical insurance, because I had been laid off and was waitressing.

Now, I would have been on my parents insurance, as I was only 23.

I was hit by a car as a pedestrian and knocked out. I briefly woke up in the ambulance, and again as they were putting staples in my head. I don't remember the MRI, CT or anything like that. I woke up the next day with a bad concussion, a tore rotator cuff and various bruises and road rash. IIRC, it was like $22k before I left the hospital.

Then I had various aftercare appointments - I had to see a neurologist a few times, I needed PT for my shoulder and vestibular therapy for my TBI. One thing I needed but did not get was therapy for what became a pretty bad case of PTSD. 20 years later, and I still don't feel comfortable driving or being in a car.

I couldn't work, because I was a waitress and you can't waitress with one arm and vertigo. There was no "lost wages" coverage, but I was super lucky - my parents were able to help me cover my bills and ended up getting an office job within a few months.

I forget how much my total bills were, but I was staring down the edge of bankruptcy at the ripe age of 23. I ended up suing my mother's insurance company, because I was covered under her umbrella policy.

So, if my parents couldn't have helped me, I would have been homeless and if they didn't have an umbrella policy - or if I had registered to vote in MA or signed a lease- I couldn't have accessed that and I would have ended up bankrupt.

The guy who hit me was broke, btw. Totally judgement proof.

4

Wtf_is_this1234 t1_ixi3qyl wrote

There's no amount of insurance that could fully cover claims like this where over 20 people are involved. It's literally a waste of time to even argue about how much insurance this guy could/should have.

2

AccomplishedSpread75 t1_ixfubxm wrote

Worker’s compensation will handle the employees’ claims and the WC carrier will likely subrogate against the drivers insurance (depending on MA subrogation laws)

9

cleancutmover t1_ixh375g wrote

Hilarious. Lets fix the problems of the world by giving more money to insurance companies.

5

UsernameTaken93456 t1_ixhb8zf wrote

Actually, the problem would be solved with free and universal healthcare, not with more insurance.

3

il_biciclista OP t1_ixh3vo1 wrote

I'm actually suggesting taking more money from the insurance companies. I realize that premiums would increase as a result, but this is not a policy that the insurance companies would want.

1

Squish_the_android t1_ixh5whc wrote

Insurance companies would net benefit here.

Higher limits are touched less often. Your second 100k of coverage costs much less than your first. If everyone is forced to take on higher limits the insurance company comes out on top because everyone is paying for something they're unlikely to use.

This policy of increasing minimum coverage limits also has a greater impact on poorer citizens, so good luck dealing with that angle.

Edit: I swapped my first/second around originally

3

tateotw t1_ixhf36l wrote

This is a bizzare thread, not sure what youre getting at here

5

[deleted] t1_ixg1uc7 wrote

[deleted]

4

il_biciclista OP t1_ixgrb3t wrote

This money has to be spent regardless. I want the driver to be responsible instead of the victims.

1

EamonnMR t1_ixg8e5a wrote

Easy PR for apple to pay off some medical bills.

4

SkiingAway t1_ixgbcgi wrote

> For context, Maine requires coverage of $50,000 for one victim or $100,000 for multiple victims. It looks like the average driver in Maine pays less than $3,000 per year for auto insurance.

And there's New Hampshire, which doesn't require insurance at all. So think about that the next time you see NH plates....

4

Complex_Ad775 t1_ixh3ezs wrote

You also notice big retail stores have them… some inconspicuously like target. They used giant red balls at the store front.

3

tomcat3121 t1_ixh60pf wrote

They can sue the driver directly and go after any extra assets that he may have (house, retirement savings, bank accounts, the car itself), or f by some miracle he has an umbrella that would kick in too. That's actually why they have the low limits, if you want higher you need to get an umbrella and protect yourself.

​

One question though, I had thought I read somewhere, and I could be mis-remembering that if you were charged criminally you could not be sued for personal liability in MA. Does anyone else know anything about this?

3

il_biciclista OP t1_ixhchxy wrote

>They can sue the driver directly and go after any extra assets that he may have (house, retirement savings, bank accounts, the car itself),

This only helps if the driver is wealthy. If you get run over by someone without any money, you should still have help paying medical bills.

>by some miracle he has an umbrella that would kick in too.

As you seem to understand, the purpose of an umbrella policy is to protect the assets of a wealthy driver (or other policyholder). That doesn't change the fact that the victims are at the mercy of the driver's financial situation.

>That's actually why they have the low limits, if you want higher you need to get an umbrella and protect yourself.

Yes, one purpose of insurance is to protect yourself. Another purpose of it is to protect others. If you opt for the lower limit, that adversely affects anybody you run over. I think that the required insurance should increase, because the victims don't have any input in what insurance you choose.

>One question though, I had thought I read somewhere, and I could be mis-remembering that if you were charged criminally you could not be sued for personal liability in MA. Does anyone else know anything about this?

I don't know the answer to that. You might be right. I hope that's not the case.

2

aly-moon t1_ixgcdq4 wrote

Doesn't mass have mandatory health insurance requirements? I could be wrong?? I'm just wondering for the sake of their medical care immediately

2

startmyheart t1_ixgdi2p wrote

AFAIK, medical insurance will sometimes deny claims for care due to auto collisions because it should be covered by the auto insurance of the at-fault driver. Cool system we've got going here

4

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixhv8h0 wrote

No. The at-fault drivers auto insurance will pay for what it can. Then your own health insurance coverage kicks in to pay the rest minus deductible, coinsurance. And then you're only paying up to your OOP maximum.

3

startmyheart t1_ixgdgom wrote

AFAIK, medical insurance will sometimes deny claims for care due to auto collisions because it should be covered by the auto insurance of the at-fault driver. Cool system we've got going here

3

bthks t1_ixgjx9p wrote

I truly don’t think the fact that auto insurance premiums would go down if universal healthcare is implemented has occurred to anyone. I moved overseas recently and there’s a number of things that are cheaper because affordable medical care exists. The rock climbing gym I go to is about half the price of the one I went to in the US simply because they don’t need the same insurance coverage.

3

BostonBopper t1_ixgw5vx wrote

That's simply not true. Health insurance will pay for medical care regardless of underlying cause. It can't deny coverage of say treatment for a broken arm because someone else caused the broken arm in an auto accident.

The insurer could pursue a lien against the driver and his insurer, but that all happens behind the scenes.

3

aly-moon t1_ixgg9hh wrote

Ah I understand. It's the same here in RI. I was wondering if you guys had it any better with your set up. I moved from mass about 15 years ago but my family is still there.

2

Public_Tension8585 t1_ixhbuzb wrote

Even 50/100 means that each injured would only get under $6k.

>For context, Maine requires coverage of $50,000 for one victim or $100,000 for multiple victims. It looks like the average driver in Maine pays less than $3,000 per year for auto insurance.

Liability coverage isn't a major factor for your premium. I used to be an independent insurance agent and sold over 600 policies to people in various states. I'd play all day with coverages from different carriers to try to find people the best price. Bigger factors are credit, how long you've had coverage and at what level, collision coverage + deductible, and accidents/tickets.

People who are insuring themselves for 100/300/100 and have had this for 10 years are usually getting much better rates than someone insuring with state minimums who have only ever had state minimums, all other factors being equal.

2

il_biciclista OP t1_ixj0qll wrote

>Even 50/100 means that each injured would only get under $6k.

I think you and I are on the same page here. I just mentioned Maine as an example of a US state that is better than Massachusetts in this respect. Frankly, I think drivers should have to carry at least $1 Million of liability coverage. The US DOT values a human life at $9.6 Million, so even $50,000 seems kind of insulting to me.

>Liability coverage isn't a major factor for your premium. I used to be an independent insurance agent and sold over 600 policies to people in various states. I'd play all day with coverages from different carriers to try to find people the best price. Bigger factors are credit, how long you've had coverage and at what level, collision coverage + deductible, and accidents/tickets.

I didn't know this, but It makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for sharing.

I don't have access to the tools that you had. Instead, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation that indicates that carrying $8 Million of liability per victim should lead to less than a $2,000 increase in premiums for the average driver. ($8 Million per death times 40,000 deaths divided by 200 Million drivers).

I've been told that I'm crazy, and that increasing the liability requirements that much would result in everyone spending $50,000 per year on insurance. It's reassuring to hear that that might not be true.

2

Public_Tension8585 t1_ixj95tb wrote

A good start would be requiring the minimum to be 50/100. While Mass is 20/40, the vast majority of states are only 25/50, so it's not like we're way under par. The reason for 50/100/50 (last one being property damage) would be due to the HCOL, types of vehicles, etc. Hit someone in Mass and chances are you're going to be in more financial trouble than hitting someone in Tennessee, even though Ten is 25/50.

> don't have access to the tools that you had. Instead, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation that indicates that carrying $8 Million of liability per victim should lead to less than a $2,000 increase in premiums for the average driver. ($8 Million per death times 40,000 deaths divided by 200 Million drivers).

Even if this actually only raised premiums by $2k, it doesn't sound realistic from the perspective of the insurance companies. Not to mention the amount of fraud it would encourage.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but back at my old agency I heard that insurance companies run on razor thin margins, majority of the money they make is from the interest they make.

2

LonelyAccountantCPA t1_ixhihbh wrote

I mean once they exhaust his coverage amount can’t they sue him directly?

2

fakecrimesleep t1_ixhlmlq wrote

They (insurance companies) do this because they fully expect injured people to sue for the full amount of their hospital bills + more if they have the money and just deal with whatever pebbles or their own disability insurance they already have if they don’t.

2

HistoricalBridge7 t1_ixgg9xd wrote

I think the punishment for driving without insurance or a license should be increased greatly especially with the recent passage of question 4.

1

symonym7 t1_ixh4ynp wrote

…in Apple Store credit, of course.

1

downthewell62 t1_ixi698b wrote

Or, Massachusetts should make shitty auto insurance companies pay out more to victims, or just give us all affordable healthcare

1

il_biciclista OP t1_ixj0z0f wrote

>Or, Massachusetts should make shitty auto insurance companies pay out more to victims, 

Yes. That's exactly what I’m suggesting. 

2

Lazy-Hooker t1_ixhyu11 wrote

Ugh that's awful. Apple should pay for their medical expenses and they should install those cement poles in front of the stores there.

−1

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixfxyxb wrote

People have their own health insurance which should cover the majority of the costs. Anyone without health insurance I bet a GoFundMe is setup. Not sure what the purpose of your post is.

−6

michael_scarn_21 t1_ixg4ov5 wrote

Many Americans do not get sick pay in their jobs. Health insurance does not cover losses due to missing work ..

5

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixgaglr wrote

Yes, this is true. I assume Apple employees will get some sort of workers comp. A few of those people probably have short term or long term disability through their employer. Those that don't have MA PMFL benefits at very least.

2

UsernameTaken93456 t1_ixhbc3i wrote

GoFundMe is not the solution to the healthcare crisis.

4

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixhs3mi wrote

I wasn't trying to say it was. I was saying for this specific accident. People are like making it into this political thing that the system has failed them and like everyone there is like an uninsured person who makes minimum wage. Most of the people there probably have resources to tap into to cover costs. Can we worry about their health not their finances?

1

hippocampus237 t1_ixh6e3f wrote

There are indications that people lost limbs! No way their health insurance covers 100% of expenses. Most insurance carriers pay a percentage of expenses and may have maximum payouts. Their bills are going to be high - through no fault of their own.

3

Ok_Purpose_1606 t1_ixhpjs6 wrote

>Most insurance carriers pay a percentage of expenses and may have maximum payouts.

Have you ever had to use your own health insurance for really high hospital costs? This is not the way it works. Otherwise no one would be able to afford cancer treatment or surgery. Please google "out of pocket maximum." Maybe for dental insurance it works the way you describe.

1

hippocampus237 t1_ixhvxuj wrote

My nephew was in a motorcycle accident and I can assure you that even with health insurance he is drowning in debt. Deductibles, percent pays, co-pays.

2

RailRoad_Candy t1_ixfu33e wrote

Everytime something happens to people who arent me, caused by people who arent me, someone who is not me wants to go diving in my pockets.

How about this, open a GoFundMe for all of the victims. I assume that as outraged as you are you know them. Then, dump a whole bunch of YOUR MONEY into it.

See, there are a lot of people out there just making ends meet and you're advocating taking even more from them in order to satisfy some feeling of justice. Its gross.

So set it up, and dump in some of YOUR MONEY. I mean its the least you could do. Well, I guess the least you could do would be nothing...followed by coming onto reddit trying to get internet points.

LAME.

−10