State Decisions to Limit Tort Liability: An Empirical Analysis of No-Fault Automobile Insurance Laws

By Harrington, Scott E. | Journal of Risk and Insurance, June 1994 | Go to article overview

State Decisions to Limit Tort Liability: An Empirical Analysis of No-Fault Automobile Insurance Laws


Harrington, Scott E., Journal of Risk and Insurance


Introduction

Sixteen states enacted auto insurance no-fault laws from 1971 through 1976 that generally contained two key features: (1) the purchase of first-party coverage for medical expenses and loss of income for drivers and passengers, known as personal injury protection (PIP), was made compulsory; and (2) tort liability of negligent drivers was limited.(1) The purchase of liability insurance for actions not affected by tort limitations also was made compulsory. Three other states enacted laws during this period that made PIP and liability coverage compulsory without limiting tort liability.(2) No state has adopted no-fault since 1976. The District of Columbia adopted a no-fault law in 1983, but it was repealed in 1986. Nevada repealed its no-fault law in 1979. Pennsylvania repealed its limitation on tort liability in 1984 but maintained compulsory PIP coverage. A subsequent change in Pennsylvania law allowed consumers to choose tort limitations in exchange for a premium discount on liability coverage. New Jersey also modified its original mandatory tort restrictions to allow consumer choice.

Despite the failure of no-fault auto insurance to spread to additional states since 1976, the subject remains of considerable interest, especially the concept of allowing consumers to choose no-fault. No-fault is often viewed as a means of reducing the cost of auto insurance. The policy debate parallels discussion in the early 1970s, when no-fault was commonly advertised as a desirable means of reducing costs. Several states included mandatory premium cuts in their no-fault laws. In addition to reducing costs and helping to make coverage more affordable, proponents of no-fault argue that the substitution of first-party medical coverage for third-party liability coverage is advantageous because it reduces dispute resolution costs and payments for general damages (pain and suffering). No-fault also leads to faster payment for losses. Opponents of no-fault argue that limitations on tort liability lead to more accidents and unfairly benefit negligent drivers. They also question whether no-fault is capable of significantly reducing premiums.

The literature on no-fault is massive and goes back at least 60 years. The modern economic literature generally has focused on two issues: whether tort limitations have affected the frequency and severity of accidents and/or claims (e.g., Landes, 1982; Zador and Lund, 1986; and Cummins and Weiss, 1989, 1992) and whether no-fault laws have led to significantly lower premiums (e.g., Smith, 1989; Cummins and Weiss, 1991; Johnson, Flanigan, and Winkler, 1992; also see Carroll et al., 1991).(3) Analyses of the former issue provide only weak evidence that limitations on tort liability have affected accident frequency and severity. Analyses of the effect of no-fault on premiums provide mixed results. Consistent with intuition, the overall results suggest that no-fault laws with weak tort limitations combined with large PIP coverage limits increase costs, but that strong tort limitations can reduce total costs, especially if PIP coverage limits are modest. Thus, no-fault laws have the potential to help control auto insurance costs if strong tort limitations are politically feasible (e.g., Cummins and Tennyson, 1992; Harrington, 1991).

This article focuses on a different issue: the decision by state legislatures to enact no-fault laws. The article considers the possible influences of levels and growth rates in insurance costs and the effects of no-fault laws on low-income households, medical care providers, insurers, and attorneys. A probit model of the decision to adopt no-fault from 1971 through 1976 is developed and estimated using cross-state data from 1970.(4) Separate equations are estimated for restrictions on tort liability and the enactment of compulsory PIP coverage. Holding other variables constant, the estimation results suggest: (1) the probability of adopting no-fault was higher in states with more rapid growth in auto liability insurance costs; (2) states with greater numbers of physicians per capita, a measure of the strength of the medical care community, were more likely to adopt no-fault; and (3) states with greater numbers of attorneys per capita were less likely to adopt no-fault laws with restrictions on tort liability.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

State Decisions to Limit Tort Liability: An Empirical Analysis of No-Fault Automobile Insurance Laws
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.