These points, though important, are secondary. A recur¬ring theme in the fault-no-fault controversy is whether or not there is a moral obligation for society to extend benefits to all traffic victims, regardless of their conduct in contributing toward their own misfortune: Is this the task of a socially responsible system of insurance? DOT believes that all motorists' economic losses should be covered regardless of fault, including medical expense, wage loss, and property damage, though it does not go as far as the AIA plan in making these benefits unlimited. Instead, it suggests that optional coverage be made available to motorists by the insurance industry to protect against the most catastrophic losses. It prefers to allow the individual the choice of absorbing his own smaller losses by liberal use of deductibles.
Greater coordination of benefits from automobile insurance with other resources was another guideline laid down by the Department of Transportation. As we have seen, the system is burdened by competing and overlapping forms of coverage from both the government—social security protection, welfare, the proposed national health insurance plan —and private insurance plans such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield. DOT recommends that all government insurance coverage ought to be primary, used even before automobile insurance. In the absence of some applicable social insurance plan, automobile coverage then would be used prior to all other private collateral health insurance sources. Duplicate medical coverages should be allowed only with the prior knowledge and consent of insurer and insured.
Visit WA State DMV
for more info.