Having given this some thought, it seems that these statutes are intended to
protect the consumer not the insurance companies.
Forgetting about antique cars, you are in an accident and the car is so far
gone that it will cost 75% of its book value to fix it. Now that car will never
be right again, nor will you in good faith ever be able to sell it. So rather
than letting the insurance company pay only that 75% of the value for
repairs, and the consumer gets a questionable car, the statute makes them pay
100% of
the value, and the consumer gets a clean slate, goes to the dealer and gets a
new Chebbie. Still out the difference between the value and what a new car
costs, but life ain't perfect.
So given the consumer protection nature of these statutes, I am pretty sure
that you will be able to opt out. Probably some provision in subsection
(D)(3)(e)(iii). These statues tend to be pretty well thought out, and then
passed in
one state after another.
As an aside, my daughter is working on project at NYU Law School, where they
are writing the Iraqi constitution. The School got a 10 million dollar grant
to do this. Sounds like alot, but chump change compared what is being spent.
Not so sure them Iraqi's are going to like this new fangled constitution thing.
Maybe we should lobby for the "spridget in an accident clause."
David Oliner
|