Sadly, insurance too often picks a poor spokesperson.
Reporting, by VIN, which vehicles do or do not have coverage, by date, is VERY simple. We’ve had computers for a while now, folks.
Yes, there will be some lag time, if we allow it. But we do not HAVE to allow it. The effective date of “removing” a unit from a fleet can be contractually changed within the policy, by state exception wording, quite easily. Simply add, “to remove a unit for coverage requires advance notice from the named insured by notice to the insurer at least 15 days prior to any deletion of coverage unless the request is accompanied by proof of sale of the unit.”
Now require agents to get deletions to carriers within that time frame, and the carriers can access the state DMV system to, on a daily basis, report VIN’s added and deleted from insurance coverage. The state can link this data to their registrations easily enough, and decide what timing they want to employ before they punish the owner. If one carrier deletes coverage, and some new carrier does not file that VIN promptly for having new coverage, then the state can choose their timing to post that license plate as uninsured — and authorize police and highway patrol to pull the vehicle off the road and impound it, and take back their license plates.
No insurance spokesperson should claim “it isn’t easy”… they should instead tell the state officials the best solutions, and then be willing to work with them to interface computer systems.
The state gains, by protecting their citizens, which is their job.
The insurance industry gains, because the higher compliance the state can create, the more vehicles are really insured, therefore the more premium carriers have to work with. …and writing more insurance is in the best interest of the carriers.
To put our head in the sand, easily allows government to lay claim that the industry is not being helpful, and is the problem, not the solution. The industry DOES care about this problem, and would enjoy having more vehicles properly insured. And the industry will then later complain that the system the state comes up with is onerous on the carriers, when they had every opportunity to come foward and solve the problem in a way that was best workable inside the industry in the first place!
We can do this. It’s truly easy. Yes, there are state laws that need to be changed, and forms that need to be reworded, and compromises to make. But if we truly want to solve this problem, we merely need to have the conviction to deal with it head on.
I agree that with today’s technology, the technical capability to add and delete coverage by VIN is very doable.
On the other hand, who pays for the extra manpower. Most commercial auto policy vehicle schedules that I’ve seen list only the last six digits of the VIN. Someone would have to go through and add all of the missing digits to thousands of policies, and then load all of these full VIN’s into the database used to “talk” to the DMV.
Does the agent/broker eat that cost, or does the carrier?
This is not as easy as you’re making out. Something over half of all commercial autos are written in alternative risk mechanisms of one type or another. It might be self-insurance, a captive, a large deductible or SIR program, a risk retention group or even a retrospectively rated program.
When you’re dealing with that kind of deal who keeps the inventory of autos? There may or may not be an insurance company involved, but if there is the company will not have that information because it has no need for it. They’re writing a high limit excess policy with a premium basis of gross receipts.
That’s why no state’s commercial reporting system works. There are too many different kinds of programs with too many different kinds of players involved in them to standardize who has the list of autos and who can transmit them to the DMV.
Sadly, insurance too often picks a poor spokesperson.
Reporting, by VIN, which vehicles do or do not have coverage, by date, is VERY simple. We’ve had computers for a while now, folks.
Yes, there will be some lag time, if we allow it. But we do not HAVE to allow it. The effective date of “removing” a unit from a fleet can be contractually changed within the policy, by state exception wording, quite easily. Simply add, “to remove a unit for coverage requires advance notice from the named insured by notice to the insurer at least 15 days prior to any deletion of coverage unless the request is accompanied by proof of sale of the unit.”
Now require agents to get deletions to carriers within that time frame, and the carriers can access the state DMV system to, on a daily basis, report VIN’s added and deleted from insurance coverage. The state can link this data to their registrations easily enough, and decide what timing they want to employ before they punish the owner. If one carrier deletes coverage, and some new carrier does not file that VIN promptly for having new coverage, then the state can choose their timing to post that license plate as uninsured — and authorize police and highway patrol to pull the vehicle off the road and impound it, and take back their license plates.
No insurance spokesperson should claim “it isn’t easy”… they should instead tell the state officials the best solutions, and then be willing to work with them to interface computer systems.
The state gains, by protecting their citizens, which is their job.
The insurance industry gains, because the higher compliance the state can create, the more vehicles are really insured, therefore the more premium carriers have to work with. …and writing more insurance is in the best interest of the carriers.
To put our head in the sand, easily allows government to lay claim that the industry is not being helpful, and is the problem, not the solution. The industry DOES care about this problem, and would enjoy having more vehicles properly insured. And the industry will then later complain that the system the state comes up with is onerous on the carriers, when they had every opportunity to come foward and solve the problem in a way that was best workable inside the industry in the first place!
We can do this. It’s truly easy. Yes, there are state laws that need to be changed, and forms that need to be reworded, and compromises to make. But if we truly want to solve this problem, we merely need to have the conviction to deal with it head on.
I agree that with today’s technology, the technical capability to add and delete coverage by VIN is very doable.
On the other hand, who pays for the extra manpower. Most commercial auto policy vehicle schedules that I’ve seen list only the last six digits of the VIN. Someone would have to go through and add all of the missing digits to thousands of policies, and then load all of these full VIN’s into the database used to “talk” to the DMV.
Does the agent/broker eat that cost, or does the carrier?
This is not as easy as you’re making out. Something over half of all commercial autos are written in alternative risk mechanisms of one type or another. It might be self-insurance, a captive, a large deductible or SIR program, a risk retention group or even a retrospectively rated program.
When you’re dealing with that kind of deal who keeps the inventory of autos? There may or may not be an insurance company involved, but if there is the company will not have that information because it has no need for it. They’re writing a high limit excess policy with a premium basis of gross receipts.
That’s why no state’s commercial reporting system works. There are too many different kinds of programs with too many different kinds of players involved in them to standardize who has the list of autos and who can transmit them to the DMV.