加州要求的最低人身伤害责任险是 1.5 万美元 —— 这个数字从 1967 年一直用到 2025 年 1 月,比阿波罗 11 号还早两年。我原本以为有一个艰难的取舍在压着最低限不让它涨,去查了证据,发现没有。真正压着它的东西更无聊,也更糟。

California required $15,000 of injury coverage from 1967 until January 2025 — a number set two years before Apollo 11. I assumed there was a hard trade-off keeping minimums low. I went looking for the evidence and it isn't there. What's actually holding them down is duller, and worse.

A declarations page is eight abbreviations and no explanation of which ones are for you. Here is every coverage on a U.S. auto policy, sorted by whose contract it belongs to — and then one $180,000 injury run through all of them, which shows what no-fault actually did and what it left completely untouched.

保单首页是八个缩写,没有一行告诉你哪些是给你的。这篇把美国车险上每一个条款按「这是谁的合同」摊开讲一遍,然后拿一场 18 万美元的伤情从头跑到尾 —— 你会看到 no-fault 到底做了什么,以及它一点都没碰到的那部分。

Every insurance policy is cut along one seam, and the seam is defined by a question nobody says out loud: who signed this contract? Count the signatures and the whole thing reorganizes — why the other driver's adjuster is allowed to lowball you, where no-fault's speed actually comes from, and why the coverage that pays a stranger's medical bills sits on the liability side.

每一张保单都是沿着同一条缝切开的,而这条缝取决于一个没人说出口的问题:这份合同是谁签的?把签字的人数一遍,整件事就会重新排列 —— 为什么对方的理赔员有权压你的价,no-fault 的快是从哪来的,以及为什么那个替陌生人付医疗费的条款,站在责任险那一边。

inland marine 跟水毫无关系,dwelling fire 是一切险,casualty 从来不是讲死伤。1660-80 年代伦敦的两场火和两杯咖啡,各留下一个名字只描述「它曾经是什么」的后代 —— 读这些名字,基本上等于对整个行业跑一遍 git blame。

Inland marine has nothing to do with water. Dwelling fire is an all-risk policy. Casualty insurance was never about the dead. Two fires and two coffee cups in 1660s-80s London left descendants whose names describe what they used to be — and reading those names is basically running git blame on an industry.