This is what I dislike about insurance. If someone hits my (hypothetical) $100k car and ruins it, I win $100k, but if someone hits my $1k car, I only win $1k.
Yet the person that hit me did precisely the same action/error.
As a result, I don't pay for coverage for my own vehicle in case I'm at fault. My jurisdiction now lets me opt-out of repair coverage others are at fault, but I couldn't stomach that. I think it's just for rental car cos that have their own repair facilities and to avoid ever getting a salvage title.
And this is reflected in your insurance premium. The cost to insure your own car is lower if you have a less expensive car.
I do, however, think it's a bit unfair if you have to pay more for liability insurance because other people have chosen to buy more expensive cars.
Yes, this. You can opt-out of insurance for your own vehicle if you want, but generally required to buy some minimum for everyone else's property that might be involved.
I specifically recall New Jersey letting poorer people drive “insured” by letting them purchase insurance for effectively fender benders, and if they caused more damage, good luck pursuing them.
It functions as one, regardless of intentions.
You could also look at this the other way: the person driving the rust-bucket with 0 functioning airbags might win more injury compensation than the individual driving something solid with 9 airbags and walks away.
If it did, you'd have more incentives for insurance fraud.
(Also it's the other guy's insurance that pays for it, and if the insurance industry disappeared overnight, and you had to sue for damages directly, no judge would award you more than the damages you sustained. (For an honest accident.))