Whenever a person suffers a car accident, most people count on the insurance firm that covers them to compensate them by paying for the medical bills or the repairs of the car. However that is not always the case as some insurance firms tend to dupe their clients on the basis that they were not seriously injured despite the fact they some pain was experienced. However the no-fault law disputes this argument presented by insurance firms.
The New York no fault insurance indicates a provision whereby a person covered by insurance is compensated by insurance despite whether the accident was their fault or not. In most cases two things are likely to occur after an accident. First no-fault insurance pays for your medical bill and lost wages except in certain scenarios involving heavy-duty trucks, buses or motorcycles. The New York no fault insurance protects pedestrians and bike riders. The second thing that is likely to take place is a lawsuit. The no fault prevents recovery for pain and suffering between people who are covered unless one proves that he/she suffered a serious injury. This is one of the highly litigated clauses in the New York no fault insurance law whereby the key issue is not whose fault the accident is but the severity of the injuries suffered from the accident.
The New York no fault insurance law covers for the following though compensation for the injuries is not fully guaranteed unless you have irrefutable evidence of having suffered a serious injury:
- Death, which is brought about by the injuries from the accident
- Dismemberment or loss of a body part
- Significant disfigurement (scar). Although there is no absolute formula to determine what size the scar should be for you to be compensated. The law stipulates that the scar must be visible in order for you to receive compensation
Traumatic abortion whereby one miscarries due the accident
These first 5 types of injuries are not so hard to prove and payment by the insurance firm is done without major disputes. This is because these types of injuries are straightforward and the law would be unfair if it did not rule in the favor of the victim of the accident.
Permanent limited use of some body organ. This means that a headache would not be considered because in most cases a headache is not a permanent occurrence and is likely maintained by use of painkillers. However in case of paralysis the law will rule in the favor of the victim because paralysis in most cases limits the use of the paralyzed body part.
A medically established injury, which causes the victim not to conduct his normal daily duties, the same way she used to before the accident for not less than three months of the next six months after suffering the injury. The usual daily activities mean that you miss about three months of work, which means that you do not receive your monthly wages. However for this argument to hold your doctor must determine that you can’t work due to that injury.