Jump to content

vehicle insurance


treehugger

Recommended Posts

....which means you dont have minimum liability.

I suspect with prov run insurance it occurs more as they are legally exhonarated from E+O claims

As far as the broker I bought the ICBC minimum from it does. He is just taking my word for it that I am buying extra liablity from a private insurer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theft you reference is $10 , doesnt matter where it comes from, it is still $10.
But $10 to Conrad Black is not the same as $10 to a homeless guy, and $10 to a Korean corner store is not the same as $10 to Walmart.

Guyesr, are you saying that $10 is the same to everyone?

Of course the victims status counts, they are the injured party afterall and if you injure someone making $1M a year, you bet you are sued for damages commensurate, aftyerall, you will be preventing them from making that money.(of course other factors come into play)
Good to know that your sense of justice varies.

But by a similar logic, why shouldn't the penalty also fit the status? That is, shouldn't Conrad Black's daughter pay more for her accidents?

If I injure Conrad Black's daughter, she has much to lose and so I must pay more (on this point, you and I agree). But if she injures me, well, she can easily pay and move on to injure someone else - at low cost to her. (On this point, we disagree. Why should she pay the same as me for her transgressions?)

You are comparing criminal law to civil law as respects an auto accident.
How is that distinction relevant here? Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But $10 to Conrad Black is not the same as $10 to a homeless guy, and $10 to a Korean corner store is not the same as $10 to Walmart.

Guyesr, are you saying that $10 is the same to everyone?

How can it be any different? $10 is $10, nothing strange about that.

$10 may mean more to a poor guy, but it is $10.

Good to know that your sense of justice varies.

If you dont understand I guess you can say what you did.

But by a similar logic, why shouldn't the penalty also fit the status? That is, shouldn't Conrad Black's daughter pay more for her accidents?

No, she should pay what the injurious party suffers.

Not on your life should Conrads daughter pay more. The injured party is the relevant one here. Not the one doing the injury.

Should the same person get a longer sentence/pay more in a restaurant/dry cleaners/admission to movies because she is rich? NO!

If I injure Conrad Black's daughter, she has much to lose and so I must pay more (on this point, you and I agree). But if she injures me, well, she can easily pay and move on to injure someone else - at low cost to her. (On this point, we disagree. Why should she pay the same as me for her transgressions?)

How is that distinction relevant here?

If you suffer an income loss and a loss of X , and it is determined that those two equal $100G , the suit proceeds on that basis. Just because she is rich does not mean that it is $100G + Rich surcharge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...