An article in this week's US News and World reports is talking about legislation currently in the works that would allow insurance companies to sell a policy that would protect you from "Pain & Suffering" suits/damages if you have a a car accident... with the caveat that you could then never receive "pain & suffering" damages. The policy would still cover, lost wages or medical bills if you have them, just nothing over and above.Now the article was quite supportive of the bill, and I can see how this might be a Foolish purchase if I could make it, it'd be cheaper than 'traditional' coverage. But in the long run is it just going to save the insurance companies money? (And maybe set a few lawyers back a few $$$)Anyone see some consequence that I'm missing?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra