That's not true. Well, at least not everywhere. In Michigan, having personal insurance when you need commercial insurance invalidates the portion of the insurance that covers the car. The portion that covers medical bills is always valid. Even if it weren't then the other driver's insurance insurance would cover the injuries. If that didn't happen then one of the passengers' insurance would cover the injuries. If the didn't happen, the insurance policy of a person who lives in the same house as one the drivers or the passengers would kick in. Of course, these backup protections are only for medical bills, but there's going to be medical coverage from somewhere. I've heard of bystanding pedestrians claiming to be hit so their insurance would kick for everyone when people in an accident have said that no one has insurance. I little scratch from flying plastic is all it takes to make you part of the accident and make your insurance part of the loop for medical coverage for everyone in the accident.
The neatest part of Michigan's insurance law is that medical bills related to a car accident are covered 100% for life, including lost wages from injuries. It's the best insurance in the country. The only thing that would be better is actual universal health care, which I'd vote for in a heartbeat. If we could referendum universal health care for this country or even just this state, I'd vote for it. I voted for Sanders for this reason, and I voted for Obama for the same reason, and I'll continue to vote for people who claim to want that until we get it. I'll concede that Obamacare is the Republican version of universal health care, but it's not universal enough for me. I have health insurance, but I had it before Obamacare. I know many people who have health care only because of Obamacare, so it works, but I know many people who don't have it yet, so it only sort of works. It's not good enough.
Every five years or so, Republicans try to get rid of Michigan's no-fault auto insurance law, but the people get pissed off and we get to keep our insurance. And since our insurance law was passed as a referendum, it would take 2/3 votes of both houses to get rid of it, which isn't happening anytime soon. The only thing some people don't like about the insurance law is that you can only sue the person at fault in an accident for $500. Everything else has to be covered by your own insurance policy. That's the no-fault part. It doesn't matter who's at fault, your insurance covers your car. Unless the other person was drunk, in which case your insurance must cover it first, but then can sue the drunkard. Note that I said nothing of fault. You are always at fault if you are drunk. And your insurance is invalid if you're drunk. Except for medical, of course. That's always valid.