California Auto Insurance Rates from – Save 50%

california car insurance quotesThe development of the 1971 legislation did not end discussion about an much more extensive no-fault for car insurance quotes Ontario. Indeed, at that time an insurance industry spokesman was quoted as stating that this was viewed as simply a initial step. Find auto insurance in California at

The following important development was the publication in 1973 of the report by the Ontario Law Reform Commission on motor vehicle accident compensation.  The empirical base for the report was information gathered in other studies; the Osgoode Hall study,  a University of Michigan study,  the Bc Royal Commission on Car insurance  and an Oxford University study.
The findings from the Osgoode Halls study happen to be described previously. In broad terms these confirmed or were confirmed through the other studies. Compensation flowing from the tort system was shown to be inadequate, poorly distributed and subject often to serious delay. Further, noting the widespread use of liability insurance, what the law states Reform Commission noticed that loss distribution, rather than loss shifting, took over as “normal method” of compensating accident victims and therefore:

The issue no longer is whether individual defendants are able to afford to deal with all of the losses they inflict, but whether the collectivity involved in the game which generates the injury, and in the situation of motoring this virtually means society in particular, can afford to deal with it. In light of the considerable amounts allocated to motoring already, an adverse answer would seem perverse.
That society had chosen to spread losses (through the widespread use and legal encouragement  of liability insurance) rather than saddle individual wrongdoers together, meant that the historical purpose of tort law (to create blameworthy individuals liable) wasn’t any longer being pursued. This, together with the fact that those aspects of tort this was retained resulted in inequities, inadequacies and delays within the processing of’ claims, fueled the argument for that complete abolition of tort because it applied to automobile accident cases. Learn more about California here

What the law states Reform Commission indicated a clear preference for any first-party, no-fault compensation system. It proposed a “pure” no- fault plan which may compensate automobile accident victims for those pecuniary losses resulting from injury, death or property damage arising from the operation of an automobile. Non-pecuniary loss wouldn’t be compensated, but other losses, specifically (a) unlimited medical, hospital and rehabilitation expenses, (b) other consequential expenses such as transportation costs and telephone bills, (c) loss of income, (d) death benefits, and (e) compensation for collision and damage to property, could be compensated.