Been looking into car insurance lately (fun times, I know...), and I'm kinda stuck figuring out if the no-fault system here in Kansas is actually better or worse than the at-fault option other states have. Seems like both have their upsides and downsides, but honestly, it's a bit confusing. Curious what you all think—do you prefer one over the other, and why?
I've looked into this quite a bit myself recently, and honestly, I think the no-fault system isn't as great as it sounds. Sure, it speeds things up because your insurance pays out quicker without waiting to figure out who's at fault... but it also means your premiums can jump even if you're not responsible for the accident. Personally, I'd rather wait a bit longer for a claim settlement than pay higher rates for something that wasn't my fault.
I get where you're coming from. A few years back, I handled a claim for someone who got rear-ended at a stoplight—clearly not their fault—but because of the no-fault setup, their premiums still took a hit. Felt pretty unfair to me too. Still, I've also seen cases drag out forever in fault-based states, leaving people hanging for months. Guess there's no perfect system...but your frustration makes total sense.
