Abstract
Foremost among the problems of automobile travel facing state legislatures may be that of ensuring adequate compensation for injuries and deaths suffered in traffic accidents. Frequently an injured party wins an award of damages against a negligent motorist, only to find the negligent party unable to meet the financial burden which the judgment imposes. The injured party, though innocent of any wrongdoing, may receive little or no compensation for injuries suffered. State legislatures have attempted to prevent such situations by enacting mandatory liability insurance laws, creating victim compensation funds, or requiring uninsured motorist coverage. Inherent weaknesses exist, however, in both the mandatory liability coverage and compensation fund approaches. In states requiring mandatory liability insurance, the absence of the required insurance is not apparent until the motorist is involved in an accident. Even in those states requiring proof of insurance as a prerequisite to vehicle registration, a motorist can allow his insurance to lapse while nevertheless continuing to drive. The sanctions of the so-called Financial Responsibility Acts thus come into play too late for the victim of the accident. The victim compensation fund approach has a similar flaw: it may require the victim to obtain an uncollectible judgment against the negligent motorist as a prerequisite to applying for compensation from the fund. Uninsured motorist coverage, which overcame these limitations, improved significantly upon these existing programs.
First Page
151
Recommended Citation
Edward R. Benjamin Jr.,
Stacked Recovery Under Maine's Uninsured Motorists Statute: Connolly v. Royal Globe Insurance Company,
36
Me. L. Rev.
151
(1984).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol36/iss1/6