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.