HomeMy WebLinkAbout2801 _
,
i
I
i'
1
i
1;
ij ~ ~
;
'
I
I~ ~
~
'! by the insurer under the PIP provisions of the new Statute !
~3
!j ,
:; and the victim would have to pay $600.00 out of his own
'
;
~ pocket; whereas, under the old law, he would be guaranteed a ~
~ ?
~ full $3,000.00 in medical benefits.) Second, the in,jured '
~
. ; ~
,
~ party will now be forced to go into the tort system to f
recover the basic economic losses not paid by PIP (i.e. 20% ` ;
r
of inedical expenses and 40% of lost wages) from the driver `
~ s
'.
: at fault. This, of course, assumes that the Claimant was ;
~
not himself responsible for the accident, and also requires ~ ~ Y
;
. him to meet one of the four stringent tort thresholds recently ~
;
;
~ i
established by §627,737(2), effective January 1, 1979. The ;
; ~
~
original proponents of no-fault legislation praised the ~ ~
statute because it eliminated the "fault" concept from the ~
~
:
system. Now a victim must not only prove fault in order to ;
~ ;
;
~
.~ receive full recovery of his basic economic losses, but he ;
~
~
~
must additionally meet one of the four stringent tort thresholds.~ ~
F
To use the illustration above, if a victim has $3,000.00 in ;
;
• ~
3
medical expenses, his PIP carrier will pay first party ; ~
benefits in the amount of $2,400.00, and the victim will be ' ~
;
responsible for $600.00 out of his own pocket. Assuming the
victim was not negligent or respo:~sible for the accident, he ~
would not be able to recover the $600.00 in unpaid medical
s
expenses from the negligent tortfeasor unless he could meet ~
one of the four stringent tort thresholds. ~'
The third major change in 1977 was the elimination
;
of the requirement that d~ivers carry $10,000.00 per person. ~
$20,000.00 per accident, bodily injury liability insurance.
This change drastically reduced the victim's amount of
guaranteed recovery. Viewed formerly as a factor in the legis- ~~~
lature's provision for an adequate alternative remedy, its
~
removal makes the present Statute unconstitutional. Under the ~ '~
reasonable alternative test set forth in Klu~er, this Court ~~
.- ~k~.~-•;~.
. .. „ ~ .,,
. . < .,~ :
's
~ -~~. , ~ _ _
~-~~ ~ ;~ ~-:~,:~w~... : :~
Page Vine
~~1~V P~z~
~,
~_ ~ _
~.~~:~'~~~- .