No‑fault vs at-fault auto insurance rates explained
No‑fault vs at-fault auto insurance rates explained
Auto insurance laws vary across the United States, and one of the most important distinctions is between at‑fault and no‑fault systems. In at‑fault states, the driver responsible for an accident is liable for damages, while in no‑fault states, each driver’s own insurance covers medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the crash.
CheapInsurance.com provides an in‑depth look at these two legal frameworks, explaining how each system operates, which states follow which rules, and how these differences can influence premiums, claims, and coverage considerations. The article also explores key factors drivers should understand when evaluating their auto insurance policies and highlights special considerations.
What Are At‑Fault States, and How Do They Operate?
In an at‑fault (tort) state, the driver determined to be responsible for causing a collision has their liability insurance cover the other driver’s bodily injuries and property damage. In this system, the injured party seeks compensation from the at‑fault driver’s insurer (or driver) rather than automatically through their own insurer.
Because fault must typically be proven using police reports, witness statements, or other evidence, lawsuits and litigation are more common.
In these states, premiums reflect the risk of being at fault, the severity of claims paid, and the likelihood of lawsuits.
What Are No‑Fault States, and How Do They Operate?
A no‑fault state means that after an accident, each driver turns to their own policy (via personal injury protection or PIP coverage) for medical expenses and lost wages, regardless of who caused the crash.
In no‑fault jurisdictions, the ability to sue the at‑fault driver for noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) is often limited or available only if injuries exceed a statutory “serious injury” threshold.
While property damage claims (vehicle repair, etc.) typically follow at‑fault procedures, the key difference lies in how bodily injury claims are processed.
States That Use No‑Fault Systems and Variants
States with Mandatory No-Fault Laws
- Florida
- Hawai’i
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- New Jersey
- New York
- North Dakota
- Pennsylvania
- Utah
States That Use At‑Fault Systems
States Operating Under At-Fault (Tort) Auto Insurance Rules
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Missouri
- Mississippi
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Mexico
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
At-fault states rely on liability coverage for the at-fault driver to compensate others for damages caused.
How Fault Structure Affects Premiums and Claims
The difference between no‑fault and at‑fault systems can influence premiums and claim costs:
- In no‑fault states, PIP coverage inclusion, which may raise base costs in states that mandate the thresholds for lawsuits, and claims for medical costs should be reviewed.
- In at‑fault states, liability limits are critical since lawsuits can seek broader compensation, including pain and suffering.
- Accident history (fault vs non‑fault) should be considered when evaluating premiums under the state system.
- Moving to or from a no‑fault state may change coverage needs and cost factors.
- A historic study found that no‑fault states had premiums on average higher than traditional tort states (19 % higher in one study).
Drivers in no‑fault states may be exposed to higher premiums or more complex coverage requirements, whereas at‑fault states may impose greater exposure via liability for serious lawsuits.
Key Implications for Drivers
- State law: Whether a state is no‑fault or at‑fault determines mandatory coverages, including PIP in no‑fault states.
- Lawsuit threshold: In no‑fault states, limits on the ability to sue for noneconomic damages may reduce insurer exposure but may also raise required benefit levels.
- Claim history: In at‑fault states, being the at‑fault party may sharply increase premiums; in no‑fault states, medical claim costs may affect rates even if fault is not assessed.
- Coverage design: Policy response depends on the state system and claim type.
- Moving states: Changing residence from a no‑fault state to an at‑fault state or vice versa can alter coverage needs and rate structure.
This story was produced by CheapInsurance.com and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
