Almost from the moment there were vehicles on the road there had to be a solution to deal with the possible damages an accident can cause. Otherwise, it would lead to a social problem where either the sate or innocent victims had to pay for a loss caused by someone who chose to drive an automobile and possibly was reckless behind the wheel.
A major problem with vehicular accidents is that it is nearly impossible how big the damages can be. There are only few motorists who can possibly pay for such damages out of their own wealth. That is why there was a need for a system like auto insurance to cover for these medical and material losses suffered by blameless third parties.
Once this point was clear it was inevitable that it had to be compulsory and it has been since the beginning of vehicular traffic. Most western countries started passing laws to that affect starting from the end of 1920s to 1930s. Since than these laws have never successfully been challenged in or out of the courts.
Is Enforcing Car Insurance Unconstitutional?
Many still argue that it is an infringement of people’s constitutional rights. However, no constitution gives anyone a right to crash onto people, their properties, cause thousands of dollars of damages and just walk away without offering some sort of compensation. When you look at from the point of those wronged third parties, it is nearly impossible to keep arguing that motorists should be free to buy liability vehicle insurance coverage or not.
By the way, it is not the only policy legally required. For example, most countries insist that any employer must insure their employees against any damages they may incur in the workplace regardless of it being work related or not. Now, who would want to find out that their employer just chose not to buy such policy in order to save few bucks after they are injured doing their job?
Governments and states are entrusted with the task that they will take the necessary steps to protect their citizens. And they do that by setting up rules and regulations to follow and penalties to deter noncompliance. Auto Insurance liability requirements are just one of those measures put in place to ensure there is some level of protection for traffic accident victims.
Another argument from the constitution point of view is that driving isn’t a right but it is a privilege. So be it if there are certain state requirements to comply before you can drive like passing the tests. In other words, you have a choice to make; comply or not drive.
Again, authorities have to make sure that most people can afford to comply with such laws. In that sense, most states keep mandatory monetary compensations offered to third parties to minimal so that premiums can be affordable. Otherwise, it would be hard to penalize a working class driver who just cannot afford the premium.
You have to keep in mind that having a proof may satisfy the enforcement officers. Nevertheless, you can still be sued for the remainder of losses should coverage fall short of paying for all the damages and injuries in full. That is why you should go well over and above basic and ensure you have a decent protection in place.
Why Not Health or Life Insurance Are Obligatory Then?
To understand why we need to look at who is protected. A life, health, comprehensive portion of an auto and many other policies you can buy serve the purpose of providing financial protection for you or your family. On the other hand, above-mentioned minimum state required liability doesn’t offer you any protection other than shielding you against penalties and being sued to a degree. It is there for the benefit of others to whom you may cause injures and financial losses.
Simply, you are free to buy protection for your and family’s needs. If you buy you benefit from them and if you don’t it is your loss. Contrarily, that choice has been taken away from you when it comes to protecting other people with a third party policy. The state takes it away from you in order to make sure others are protected from your driving.
From the US point of view, this is clearer for an unemployed person who still has to insure his car if he wants to drive but cannot be penalized for not having health protection. In the US, the federal government can apply a tax penalty if you are earning enough but still didn’t buy health coverage. So, instead of being as clear-cut as legal or illegal, you have a choice to pay the tax penalty or the premium. This is is a controversial issue in the USA while some countries like United Kingdom can offer it to everyone free of charge. It is not the scope of this post to delve into those arguments.
Yet, there may be cases where you are required life cover by a mortgage lender in order to protect the loan in case of your death. So, these policies can be used as a financial product to overcome an uncertainty. Actually, there are various solutions offered by insurers that can facilitate a contract by undertaking the responsibilities of certain parties. So, they don’t just protect you but can let you navigate tight spots pretty easily in life and business.
As a general rule people don’t like to be told what to do, especially where they spend their money. On the other hand, once they are convinced that they need certain policy they are willing to find out more, learn as much as they can and go over and above to buy the most beneficial package they can afford.
It can even be argued that majority of motorists would insure their cars regardless. In fact, over 70 percent of motorists happily pay for the comprehensive premium rather than a cheaper basic mandatory option because they feel they need the protection offered.