At that time a Columbia University study found that "no system based on liability for fault is adequate to meet existing conditions."

However, it was another 40 years before 16 states adopted no-fault systems. While this resulted in better compensation for injured persons, several states failed to deliver on the promise of lower premiums.

"Good no-fault laws require tight thresholds (i.e., limits on lawsuits) in order to balance out the increased cost of no-fault benefits," Mr. Kinzler writes. "Unfortunately, most of the 16 no-fault states had 'weak' thresholds that were inserted into the laws at the urging of the opponents of no-fault, the tort bar."

Among the options that would reduce costs in the tort systems would be:

o Repealing or modifying the collateral source doctrine to discourage people from running up medical bills in order to get a tort recovery for the same bills, when health insurers do not track tort claims and recoup what they paid their insureds from the successful tort claim.

o Adopting a higher standard to recover for pain and suffering while maintaining the negligence standard to recover for economic loss.

o Making early offers that would enable consumers to recover economic damages from an insurer in a more timely fashion, thus avoiding both the delays and the uncertainties of recovery of the civil litigation tort system.

o Establishing a "full tort" versus "economic tort" option that would permit motorists to elect to forego pain and suffering damages in return for significantly lower premiums.

As for no-fault reforms, the options, it was suggested, should include:

o Replacing weak state thresholds with thresholds that permit lawsuits only for uncompensated economic loss and not for pain and suffering.

o Adopting strong verbal thresholds based on the model state law.

o Permitting motorists to choose between the no-fault law in their state and pure no-fault.