The opening sentence, “Maryland drivers would likely see their car insurance payments increase” is severly misinformed. Only those drivers at minimum limits now would see an increase, and a minor one at that. Drivers insured above the minimum limits would be unaffected. In fact, over time, this could lead to lower rates for MD drivers. As it stands now, minimum limits are so low (haven’t been adjusted in 38 years) that drivers have to pay for extra UIM coverage. That is not how the system should work – the coverage of the at-fault driver should be sufficient enough to coverage costs. If minimum limits were increased to reflect today’s cost, there could be less reliance on UIM coverage for the majority of MD drivers.
An increase in minimum limits is long overdue, and the arguements being raised against it hold no water.
I would hope your right but I’d say it would have the opposite effect. I you raise the minimum requirements for BI then the average payout per claim would be higher which would give insurance companies a reason to raise rates for everyone statewide.
Talk to a personal injury lawyer and ask them if the ever sue for anything less than a persons limit of liability. I have and was told if you have 20/40 BI limits they are going to sue for $40,000.
I think this bill will aid frivilous lawsuits and put more money into lawyers pockets.
According to Fast Track data, over the trailing four quarters an average BI claim in Maryland has settled for under $11K, accompanied by an average property damage claim severity just under $3K. Help me understand how this data makes the about-to-be-increased financial responsibility limits inadequate. Sounds more like a pay hike for the plaintiff bar than anything else.
I have to say that I agree with Phil and the reason for that is simple: when BI limits are low, additional coverage will be had in UIM. And if you ever worked with loading losses against premium, you would see how the reliance on UIM distorts BI loss costs. This will ultimately bring a modest increase into the whole premium pie, not just for BI. What you may not know is how UIM rates have skyrocketed over the years, far in advance of BI simply due to plaintiff’s reaching deeper into tortfeasor pockets. This is just an attempt to make the rates for BI a little, and only a little, more equitable…after all, when BI limits are exhausted and then UIM, how else can a carrier cost shift unintended losses if not to all liability as a whole. In the end, we all pay for it; this will just get others throwing a little more into the available premium pool.
The opening sentence, “Maryland drivers would likely see their car insurance payments increase” is severly misinformed. Only those drivers at minimum limits now would see an increase, and a minor one at that. Drivers insured above the minimum limits would be unaffected. In fact, over time, this could lead to lower rates for MD drivers. As it stands now, minimum limits are so low (haven’t been adjusted in 38 years) that drivers have to pay for extra UIM coverage. That is not how the system should work – the coverage of the at-fault driver should be sufficient enough to coverage costs. If minimum limits were increased to reflect today’s cost, there could be less reliance on UIM coverage for the majority of MD drivers.
An increase in minimum limits is long overdue, and the arguements being raised against it hold no water.
I would hope your right but I’d say it would have the opposite effect. I you raise the minimum requirements for BI then the average payout per claim would be higher which would give insurance companies a reason to raise rates for everyone statewide.
Talk to a personal injury lawyer and ask them if the ever sue for anything less than a persons limit of liability. I have and was told if you have 20/40 BI limits they are going to sue for $40,000.
I think this bill will aid frivilous lawsuits and put more money into lawyers pockets.
According to Fast Track data, over the trailing four quarters an average BI claim in Maryland has settled for under $11K, accompanied by an average property damage claim severity just under $3K. Help me understand how this data makes the about-to-be-increased financial responsibility limits inadequate. Sounds more like a pay hike for the plaintiff bar than anything else.
I have to say that I agree with Phil and the reason for that is simple: when BI limits are low, additional coverage will be had in UIM. And if you ever worked with loading losses against premium, you would see how the reliance on UIM distorts BI loss costs. This will ultimately bring a modest increase into the whole premium pie, not just for BI. What you may not know is how UIM rates have skyrocketed over the years, far in advance of BI simply due to plaintiff’s reaching deeper into tortfeasor pockets. This is just an attempt to make the rates for BI a little, and only a little, more equitable…after all, when BI limits are exhausted and then UIM, how else can a carrier cost shift unintended losses if not to all liability as a whole. In the end, we all pay for it; this will just get others throwing a little more into the available premium pool.