>Valid point that without accidents the rates might not be so high, but
>you must admit that people getting greedy joining up with shyster
>lawyers, compounded by juries that award judgments way out of
>proportion to the situation all have definite impacts on rates. And I
>think what Kate was saying was that people are entitled to fair and
>just compensation for a loss, but should be guided by conscience as to
>what fair and just is in their particular case. Damage repair and
>medical sure. Compensation for loss of use while repairs are made,
>sure. But claiming damage that was already there, or injuries that
>don't exist yet can't be disproved, in order to find that pot of gold
>at the end of the rainbow is way beyond just being morally wrong.
>That's just pure greed which, if nothing else, is the kind of thing
>which gives insurers the excuse, founded or not, to jack up everyone's
>rates.

>On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:07:26 -0400, "Fao, Sean"
><enceladus311@yahoo.comI-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote:
>
>>SVTKate wrote:
>>
>>> As far as taking advantage of the situation, you have got to lead with your
>>> concience.
>>> People that take advantage are the reason that insurance rates are so high.
>>> If your car is repaired to pre-wreck condition and you have no physical
>>> injuries, then why ask for more than you are entitled to, just because you
>>> can?
>>
>>Maybe you and I share different views on this topic.  IMHO, making up
>>for a loss in value (assuming there is one) is more than enough reason
>>to ask for a little more.  Taking advantage of the situation isn't what
>>makes rates high.  More often than not, it's lack of attention and/or
>>foolish behavior that causes the accident, which leads to high rates.
>
>Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16