That's not what No-Fault is, and not what it does. "No fault" simply means that, in certain circumstances, the insurance carriers for drivers involved in a collision are required to pay the claim regardless of who is at fault.

It certainly doesn't (and constitutionally cannot) prevent one driver from suing another, when he hasn't been paid for the losses he incurred due to the fault of another driver.

Additionally, it doesn't apply when the at-fault driver is uninsured, or when the at-fault driver's insurance carrier wrongly denies coverage. The OP in this situation doesn't seem to have received payment for the damage to his car, and so one of these scenarios is bound to be the case.

I hope you don't really think that there is ANY law out that will prevent you from suing someone else who runs into your car and won't pay you. That is not the case. Florida is a No-Fault state, and I've still had to haul 3 different drivers into court who ran into me and had no insurance, or where their carrier refused to pay for one ridiculous reason or another.

Lastly, if you reread my original post, you will note that I clearly said he was entitled to either the repair cost or the bluebook value of the car, whichever is less. It's right there in the first sentence. But $3k-$4k is still a whole heck of a lot better than the $0 he will get if he does nothing and pays for repair himself. Bad things may happen to nice people, but that doesn't mean the person at fault doesn't have to pay to make it right.