Check out some similar questions!

tornadoalli · Feb 27, 2007, 05:27 PM

My son was in an accident. He hit another car in an interesection wit no stop or yield signs. He rec'd the ticket for fail to yield because he was on the right. The other driver was ticketed for no proof of insurance. The polic officer at the scene informed my son that Kansas is a no fault state and each of them would have to claim their damages to their own insurance companies? Is this correct? What are we liable for in a No-Fault state. Also, We recently moved and when I called my insurance co they said our policy was cancelled 3 months ago. We were under the impression that we were covered to the end of this month and have our new insurance starting at the beginning of next month. What if both of us don't have insurance?

excon · Feb 27, 2007, 07:28 PM

Hello torn:

Whoever has or doesn't have insurance has nothing to do with who is liable for the accident. Your son appears to be at fault. Therefore, if the other guy sues your son for his damages, the other guy will probably win.

Your son has nobody to go after because he caused the accident.

excon

RichardBondMan · Mar 5, 2007, 08:13 PM

You said KS is a "no fault" state so let me assume you are correct. There are different degrees of "no fault" and I am not familiar with KS law. No fault "basically" means he pays for his losses, the other party pays for theirs. Here's something else to consider and I will give you an example... LA is a "no pay, no play" state, doesn't have anything to do with "no fault". If you have no insurance in LA and are in violation of the mandatory insurance law that requires all LA drivers, vehicles to have insurance, then you could be sitting at a red light minding your own business and you get rear ended totaling your vehicle and sending you to the hospital, you have no right to recover your losses from the person at fault who rear ended you --- so it might matter in KS that he had no insurance... you got to ck the KS law on that... I don't know KS law but you say it's a "no fault" state and no fault laws are designed to reduce lawsuits, hassle... so your son may not be able to sue... and on the other hand, the other party may not be albe to sue your son... I suggest you check with an attorney who practices law in KS.

sideoutshu · Mar 6, 2007, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by RichardBondMan

You said KS is a "no fault" state so let me assume you are correct. There are different degrees of "no fault" and I am not familar with KS law. No fault "basically" means he pays for his losses, the other party pays for theirs. Here's something else to consider and I will give you an example.... LA is a "no pay, no play" state, doesn't have anything to do with "no fault". If you have no insurance in LA and are in violation of the mandatory insurance law that requires all LA drivers, vehicles to have insurance, then you could be sitting at a red light minding your own business and you get rear ended totaling your vehicle and sending you to the hospital, you have no right to recover your losses from the person at fault who rear ended you --- so it might matter in KS that he had no insurance... you got to ck the KS law on that..... I dont know KS law but you say its' a "no fault" state and no fault laws are designed to reduce lawsuits, hassle.... so your son may not be able to sue... and on the other hand, the other party may not be albe to sue your son.... I suggest you check with an attorney who practices law in KS.

Im not sure what Richard is talking about here, but I practice law in a "no fault" state, and let me assure you that isn't the way it works here. See the link below, I gave someone a legnthy explanation in another post.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-...y-55582-2.html