Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!ark From: ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: Denying insurance coverage. Message-ID: <2467@rabbit.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Feb-84 14:03:22 EST Article-I.D.: rabbit.2467 Posted: Thu Feb 2 14:03:22 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 01:37:05 EST References: <98@whuxj.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 16 One motivation for buying insurance is to protect one from one's own negligence. Thus, though I feel not wearing a seat belt should be considered negligent, I don't think that should deny insurance coverage any more than any other kind of negligence. I have a better idea. New Jersey (and other states as well, I think) has a rule that if you hit someone else's tail it's your fault regardless of how it happened. One might similarly argue that if you are involved in an accident that injures someone not wearing a seat belt, that person is at fault and must collect from his/her own insurance company, not yours. Getting into an accident while not wearing a seat belt would thus have the same sort of effect on your future rates as any other accident that is considered to be your fault.