Car insurance

Can governments lawfully restrict, register, or otherwise encumber our free right to travel? Should they? Discussions on Right to Travel.
wmdcrain
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: Car insurance

Post by wmdcrain » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:31 pm

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/busine ... law.html#1

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract
excerpt: n a typical "breach of contract" action, the party alleging the breach will recite that it performed all of its duties under the contract, whereas the other party failed to perform its duties or obligations.
excerpt: An agreement creating obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements of a contract are mutual assent, consideration, capacity, and legality. In some states, the element of consideration can be satisfied by a valid substitute. Possible remedies for breach of contract include general damages, consequential damages, reliance damages, and specific performance.

http://www.pvamu.edu/pages/3117.asp

"Elements" of [Common Law] Contract

Agreement
A. Offer

Offeror's serious intent to be bound
Reasonably certain and definite terms
Communication to Offeree(s)
B. Acceptance

Offeree's serious intent to be bound
Communication to Offeror
Consideration
Legal Capacity (of Offeror and Offeree)
Legal Purpose
Genuineness of Assent (No fraud, duress, undue influence, etc.)
Form (kinds of contracts requiring writing to be enforceable)
NOTE: Elements 3, 5, and 6, are most frequently raised in defense of a cause of action for breach of contract. Elements 3 and 5 would be at least impliedly proven in the process of proving elements 1 and 2. Element 6 would become an issue only if the proof of Element 1 or 2 proved a contract that must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds (or other statute requiring written agreements).

Element 4 probably is also most frequently raised as a defense, but if the illegal purpose is obvious, the court will dismiss the action on its own motion (i.e. even if the issue is not raised by one of the parties).
wmdcrain
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: Car insurance

Post by wmdcrain » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:44 pm

In a court of common law one faces an accuser, or on the other hand one is calling the other a wrong doer there is no "state official" (DA, prosecutor) one has to have hurt someone, damaged property either public or private, or breached a contract.

I HAVE COME TO FACE MY ACCUSER, SHOW YOUR SELF AND SPEAK, ( silence) WHERE IS THE CONTRACT THEN THAT I AM SAID TO HAVE BREACHED?
wmdcrain
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:14 pm

Re: Car insurance

Post by wmdcrain » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:11 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_an ... of_the_law We have the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Really, insurance is a scam, complicit with the corporate state and insurance corporations, everyone knows that they are responsible for theirselves and others, wherever they happen to be and whatever they happen to be doing.
mark234
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:01 am

Re: Car insurance

Post by mark234 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:19 am

Agreed with most of the comments. Car insurance policy can be of two types:
1- Minimum Required Insurance Policy
2- Full Protection Policy

Minimum requires policy will only cover those damages, which are done by your car to others car. It will not cover damage done to your car.

Full protection policy will not only cover damage done to others car, but also it will cover cost of damage to your car as well. But, this policy is quite expensive as compared to previous one.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Car insurance

Post by editor » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:39 pm

Ok, mark234, I'll bite. Your post looks suspiciously like spam, for these reasons:

1) You say you agree with "most" of the comments, but you don't seem willing to tell us with which parts you agree; disagree, and why.

2) You make a simple statement about the types of policies, which I think pretty much everyone already knows.

I smell an insurance salesman.

But that's okay, and it's why I approved your post. You may have some answers the rest of us are looking for-- IF you're willing to share them.

It's easy to understand why a Full Protection Policy would apply only to one specific car. But that's not really the topic of conversation here. My beef is with having to pay Personal Liability / Property Damage (PLPD) on every car I may own, when I can only drive one of them at a time. I should be able to purchase a policy which covers me against any damage or injury I may cause, regardless of what car I may be using at the time.

In my opinion, the fact that I cannot seem to purchase such a policy is evidence of fraud and collusion on behalf of the insurance companies and the governmental bodies which regulate them.

Mark234, can you point me to an insurance company which offers the sort of policy I've described?
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Car insurance

Post by editor » Fri May 08, 2015 8:02 pm

I have a bit of information which may be useful to those readers who have not managed to extract themselves from the world, and who buy insurance for their cars.

I have a friend, let's call him Bob, who has six cars. Actually he has no cars, as they are all owned by trusts or corporations, but in one way or another Bob has the use of them.

Bob has been unhappy for a long time over the insurance scam described by his friend the Editor, in the lead article of this topic. Bob is married, and has regularly purchased insurance for three of his six cars, covering his wife and himself, for the sum of about $2,500 a year. Only one of the cars had comprehensive (replacement) coverage, the others had only liability and property damage. A couple of Bob's cars are farm trucks which he rarely, though sometimes drives into town. At these rates Bob can't afford to insure those trucks, so even though Bob pays exorbitant insurance rates, he takes a risk every time he drives those trucks to town.

As an added protection against liability, Bob has put all of his cars into trust. Not one trust with six cars, but six trusts, each of which owns a single car. Bob is the trustee for each of these trusts.

This year, with no tickets or accidents, Bob's insurance provider raised his premium to $2,875. Even after dropping the comprehensive on the one car, he would still be paying over $2,000. He decided to try to find a different answer, and he asked me to help. So I did some research.

The answer was hard to find. Regular searches pulled up vague psuedo-answers. After awhile I hit upon the term "non owners policy". This turned out to be a password of sorts.

If you contact an insurance company and tell them, "I want to buy a personal liability policy. Like car insurance, but it covers me, personally, for any car I might drive. Same kind of PL/PD as regular car insurance, but it covers me, not the car.", most insurance agents will give you a blank stare, pretend they don't know what you're talking about, and say, "Sorry, we can't help you."

But if you contact any number of companies and tell them, "I want a non-owners auto policy," they'll say, "Sure, we can do that."

The first question they'll ask is, "Do you own a car?" My friend Bob can answer honestly, "No." "Does your wife own a car?" Again, "No." "Okay, we can do that."

The policy itself contains no restrictions as to whether or not the insured persons own a car. This is just something the agents try to use as a means of steering people back to the "one policy for every car" scam.

So Bob got the following policy, covering both his wife and himself:

Bodily Injury Liability $100K each person, $300K each accident
Property Damage Liability $100K each accident
Medical Coverage $25K each person
Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury $25K each person, $50K each accident
Uninsured Motorist Property Damage $25K each accident, $200 deductible

Total cost, less than $250 for 6 months, call it $500 per year.
Not only did Bob save more than $2,000, he can now drive his farm truck into town and he's covered.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
scar
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:49 am

Re: Car insurance

Post by scar » Tue May 12, 2015 7:47 am

i just canceled my insurance outright. why should i be required to pay for insurance covering damages i MIGHT cause to someone else? does everyone in my neighborhood have to purchase liability homeowners' insurance in case they accidentally egg my house? no. insuring my property and person is my responsibility and my choice, insuring someone else's property and/or person is just generous and can not be required of free people. i'm not contracted with the State any longer and am not required to purchase liability insurance according to those laws, nor can i be punished for simply not carrying such insurance.

on the other hand, if i were using the public roads for an extraordinary use, for personal gain/profit/commerce, then i can see how i should be required to purchase liability insurance...
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: Car insurance

Post by editor » Tue May 12, 2015 8:09 am

I completely agree with you Scar. I posted the information because there are some people who will be helped by it.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Post Reply