He may be At Fault for not having insurance. He may or may not be at fault for the accident. Whether or not a driver carries insurance is a separate issue than the one concerning who is at fault in an accident. Do not confuse them or let them overlap. A good, objective assessor won't.
Who is at fault has to do with the accident itself not the insurance coverage. A police report of the accident and looking at the proximate cause of the accident help determine fault.
Typically, the uninsured driver will be cited for it, and your insurance co. is liable for the damages.
Liability insurance financially protects a driver who is not a fault in an accident by paying for damages. It will protect the driver who is at fault from being sued for damages.
The at fault driver is responsible regardless of who has or does not have insurance. You were at fault, you get the bill. Fortunately though you have insurance. So they get the bill.
It does not matter to an insurance company that the other driver had a suspended license. Liability is determined by the factors of the accident and the evidence put forth. The fact that the other driver had no license does not affect liability or the handling of the claim.
Shouldn't do provided other driver is identified.
If a taxi driver hits you, and its his fault, the cab company's insurance pays.
If you are involved in an automobile accident caused by another driver, and that driver carries no insurance, your no-fault clause is designed to protect your financial interests.
The insurance company of the driver "at fault,' or from their personal funds if they have no insurance.
If that driver was found at fault, then usually it would.