No-Fault vs. the Present Reparations System--A West Virginia Insurance Executive's View

In discussing no-fault insurance in any Law Review article, undoubtedly one with legal training undertakes the task with more than ordinary trepidation as, unfortunately, no one is able to fortify any position he might take with elaborate legal citations. Nonetheless, as a West Virginia lawyer, as president of a West Virginia-domiciled insurance company predominantly writing what future historians might some day call auto fault insurance, and as a citizen, this legal dissertation might be more properly classed as a sharing of some of my thoughts as to where we stand, and what legislative steps might ultimately prove in our best interests. The logic of using the fault system as the basis for automobile accident reparations is the subject of intense controversy today, and the future of the tort liability system as the basis for compensating the motor vehicle victim awaits the judgment of the American public. Basic to either the partial or complete abandonment of the traditional fault system is the selection of a substitute method of compensating accident victims.

A suggested substitute is a "no-fault" insurance system of one form or another. To date, the States of Delaware, Massachusetts, Illinois, Florida and Oregon have enacted legislation in the no-fault area, each state adopting a somewhat differing statutory approach. The activity of these states has been largely prompted by public sentiment.