The last sentence in the article appears to me to be ridiculous. What’s so impossible about telling an insured – personal or commercial – that only “Named Insureds” get the benefit of the full UM/UIM limits shown without qualification in the dec pages? The reason so many agents are being sued over this coverage change is that most agents are or were completely ignorant of the policy form change. Amazing! Even to this day!
To Reaper – blame the NJ Legislature and its pandering to the voting, but non-thinking, public for both the Basic and Special auto policy forms which protect almost no one. To WHY, the lawyers didn’t find a loop hole. The large majority of UM/UIM employee injuries occur while the vehicles are being used for non-business purposes, and thus no WC coverage is available. Also, recognize the insurance companies STOLE the coverage, with NO PREMIUM REDUCTION, based on the incorrect interpretation of the UM/UIM endorsement in the Aubrey vs Harleysville case. The Supreme Court eventually “reversed” itself, but the companies stole the coverage anyway.
As a P.S., you are obviously not aware that when the companies filed their revised UM/UIM endorsements which virtually eliminated all UM/UIM coverage from both Personal and commercial auto policies, they misrepesented the affect on claims that the “step-down” provision would result in. The carriers also INCREASED their UM/UIM rates in each of the next three years or so. What has happened to the honesty and integrity in the industry?
Way wrong Dawn. If an ee was injured in an auto accident and it was not their fault, yes WC is primary but that does not eliminate the injured ee’s right of recovery for their injury against the reponsible party. IF the other party is underinsured or uninsured the injured ee has EVERY right to submit a claim for UM/UIM under the business auto policy. This is true, at least, in CA and many other states. Asleep that day in class? There is no loophole one just needs to learn how to read and comprehend an auto policy. Maybe you’re a newbie to the insurance industry.
You’re right Nancy. And in any event, the W.C. carrier will have a lien against the “third-party” recovery under UM/UIM so the injured employee will not receive duplicate benefits for medicals and wage loss. Regardless of these issues. the key is that the insurance companies in NJ took advantage of a bad decision by our Supreme Court, and stole coverage that had been paid for by insureds for a great many years.
The last sentence in the article appears to me to be ridiculous. What’s so impossible about telling an insured – personal or commercial – that only “Named Insureds” get the benefit of the full UM/UIM limits shown without qualification in the dec pages? The reason so many agents are being sued over this coverage change is that most agents are or were completely ignorant of the policy form change. Amazing! Even to this day!
How about nixing the fake “low cost” auto policy which is not an auto policy.
employees injuries should fall under WC. UM / UIM was not intended to supplement. Ya have to love the lawyers who found the loophole.
To Reaper – blame the NJ Legislature and its pandering to the voting, but non-thinking, public for both the Basic and Special auto policy forms which protect almost no one. To WHY, the lawyers didn’t find a loop hole. The large majority of UM/UIM employee injuries occur while the vehicles are being used for non-business purposes, and thus no WC coverage is available. Also, recognize the insurance companies STOLE the coverage, with NO PREMIUM REDUCTION, based on the incorrect interpretation of the UM/UIM endorsement in the Aubrey vs Harleysville case. The Supreme Court eventually “reversed” itself, but the companies stole the coverage anyway.
As a P.S., you are obviously not aware that when the companies filed their revised UM/UIM endorsements which virtually eliminated all UM/UIM coverage from both Personal and commercial auto policies, they misrepesented the affect on claims that the “step-down” provision would result in. The carriers also INCREASED their UM/UIM rates in each of the next three years or so. What has happened to the honesty and integrity in the industry?
Way wrong Dawn. If an ee was injured in an auto accident and it was not their fault, yes WC is primary but that does not eliminate the injured ee’s right of recovery for their injury against the reponsible party. IF the other party is underinsured or uninsured the injured ee has EVERY right to submit a claim for UM/UIM under the business auto policy. This is true, at least, in CA and many other states. Asleep that day in class? There is no loophole one just needs to learn how to read and comprehend an auto policy. Maybe you’re a newbie to the insurance industry.
You’re right Nancy. And in any event, the W.C. carrier will have a lien against the “third-party” recovery under UM/UIM so the injured employee will not receive duplicate benefits for medicals and wage loss. Regardless of these issues. the key is that the insurance companies in NJ took advantage of a bad decision by our Supreme Court, and stole coverage that had been paid for by insureds for a great many years.
Thanks NJ IE for pointing out the WC lien, I forgot to mention that in my prior post.