An Alternative Explanation for No-Fault's 'Demise'

80 Pages Posted: 22 Aug 2012

Date Written: 2012


In the space of one decade, automobile no-fault legislation — the second most ambitious alternative compensation scheme ever enacted in the United States — went from being widely viewed as “inevitable” to having, it is said, met its sad “demise.” Using a broad mix of primary source material, including voluminous congressional testimony and thousands of contemporaneous press and journal accounts, this Article excavates the history of the American no-fault experiment. With the benefit of this previously untapped material, the Article enriches — and in places, complicates — conventional explanations for why no-fault fizzled. It then situates the no-fault experience within a larger socio-legal framework and, in so doing, raises provocative questions about no-fault’s legacy. Then it finally, and more broadly, steps back to view the no-fault experiment not in isolation but as an exemplar of what may be a larger story about tort’s durability and the evolution, and ultimate convergence, of even very different legal regimes over time.

Keywords: tort, no-fault, insurance, auto insurance, alternative compensation mechanisms, auto accidents, policy window, adversarial equilibrium

Suggested Citation

Engstrom, Nora Freeman, An Alternative Explanation for No-Fault's 'Demise' (2012). DePaul Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 303, 2012, Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2133393, Available at SSRN:

Nora Freeman Engstrom (Contact Author)

Stanford Law School ( email )

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
United States
6507368891 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics