A three time convicted drunk driver will not have ANY insurance and will likely have no assets.
So the answer is yes!. If you wish to get compensated for such an accident then you should have insurance for that situation.
I thought you said it was "pointless" to go on.
You live in a strange world where people should be free from liability for their acts.
Hardly. But I live in California where at least 30% of the drivers are uninsured and 30% of the contractors are probably unisured or underinsured. So if I am going to make sure that my family is taken care of in the event of someone else's negligence, then I am going to have to make sure I have adequate insurance to cover any such unfortunate event.
I take it from your responses that you think that other people should be responsible for caring for your family in the event that they do something stupid and kill you. But what if they have limited insurance or no insurance at all? What if the policy limit is $15,000. Is that going to feed your family for the next 20 years?
no, thats why you sue them so you can garnish their wages to recover what you actually lost. And a $15,000 injury limit is laughable, I doubt that such a policy even exists.
I'm also a bit suspect of the "three messages on the answering machine" story (i know it was a different poster). Most states have strict ethical restrictions regarding soliciting accident victims immediately after the event. And even if they were unethical enough to violate the rules of professional conduct, I doubt they would be stupid enough to leave a message as proof. Maybe your state doesn't have ethics rules, mine does. it also has much stricter rules on lawsuits than CA as well.
Perhaps the problem lies with the laws of CA, rather than the lawyers that apply them?